That reminds me of the dialogue from Taxi Driver

- "In California, when two fags split up, one's gotta pay the other alimony."

- "Not bad. They're way ahead out there. You know what I mean?"

Oh well, equality shouldn't have to wait. But why couldn't this all have occurred in 2007? Or better, why couldn't the Gurly Man have just signed the gay marriage bill passed by the legislature?

I think early court action spells trouble in the long term, but then, California can probably handle it. I will still be celebrating if the Supremes come down for marriage equality, despite the possible long-term problems.

Mike, I think you're deluded, remember when your supremes ruled that the only accepted therapy for transgender people was mental health counseling?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

You may recall that we thought we had the votes for the marriage case here in Washington, and then that shameless, lying fucktard Barbara Madsen shoved a knife in our backs so hard that it came out our stomachs.

What the nuts was she thinking, you ask? Read all about it here:

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/a_very_special_interview_with_antimarria

Let's see the decision first, then deal with the fallout.

it was bold and decisive and viewed as very controversial in other states

perhaps they will lead again on this issue

three cheers

and polls say the public is not far behind, even elected judicial figures heed public opinion

Otherwise, you get bullshit about "activist courts" that fuel initiatives.

Next up in the gay arms race - Hawaii.

I intensely dislike Arnold, because he kills puppies, but this is one thing where I think he's been approaching it from the right direction. Californians aren't stupid, a major part of our economy is based on gay labor, and even the slightly right-leaning ones are in a hurry to disassociate themselves from the likes of Heidi Montag and our other airhead Republican ingenues.

But I agree, Mr. Poe should not be allowed to marry, but just because he doesn't want to be allowed to.

Although he could marry a puppy ... provided it's a pit bull puppy ... a boy one.

letting out rulings is a huge felony btw. a crime. everyone involved would be disbarred. imagine if that happened in business cases, everyone could short sell stocks whatever.

hope the court rules in favor to legalize equality and agree we need both legal recognition and legislative recognition ...and better understanding and acceptance in people's hearts so all respect the fundamental personal choices of all.....there are several fronts in this battle and we do not get to choose to avoid any of them......

Gay marriage doesn't compare to legalized abortion, anyway -- it compares to interracial marriage. There's no "baby murdering" angle, so people who are against it for bigoted reasons eventually get over it. Many states had already legalized interracial marriage when Loving vs. Virginia came out, but it forced the reluctant states to accept it. I think this is the most likely path for same-sex marriage.

Also, even though interracial marriage is legal, I still say the hell out of Idaho and Maine with my not-same-race partner. It's legal (just like abortion is in South Dakota), but that doesn't mean it's practical or safe. The courts can't guarantee that.