Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Gay Marriage


He went so far as to call the initiative a "waste of time" and acknowledge that the people of California are, "much further along on that issue."

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?"

Posted by JMR | April 15, 2008 5:29 PM

George Takei is going to give Arnold an earful over this.

Posted by Peter F | April 15, 2008 5:30 PM

The big Gay event in California is the White Party not marriage.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | April 15, 2008 5:40 PM

Don't beh an omophobic gurly mhan!

Posted by Sirkowski | April 15, 2008 5:51 PM

Every gay person deserves a shot at divorce.

Posted by El Seven | April 15, 2008 6:14 PM

Wow, and I thought *Michigan* was a progressive state!

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-matt) | April 15, 2008 6:23 PM

Great--just in time for the 2008 election!

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?

Posted by GayGay | April 15, 2008 6:44 PM

No, no, no, no, no! We cannot fucking win this thing through the courts. The courts have to rule against us, the legislature has to keep passing marriage equality bills, and then he has to fucking sign it. That's the way we win, and the way we win for real.

Posted by Gitai | April 15, 2008 7:03 PM

I think you are wrong 8. I think the courts need to do their job and not stand by while segments of the population are discriminated against. Also, if the California court goes for marriage, I'm confident the Iowa Supremes will follow their lead. And once you've got the two coasts, and a heartland state, the battle will effectively be won.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | April 15, 2008 7:13 PM

#8 Gitai, I think you're right. A few decades ago, prior to Roe v. Wade, the tide was actually turning in favor of legalized abortion - states were legalizing it, even the clergy was behind it. Then Roe v. Wade happened and all of a sudden we have this huge forced birth movement. Some people say the forced birth movement would not exist if it wasn't for Roe v. Wade - that abortion would be more legal and accessible to everyone if it had taken its natural path.

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?

Posted by Sister Y | April 15, 2008 8:37 PM

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:

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

Posted by Original Andrew | April 15, 2008 8:39 PM

an important historical reminder - Califonia Supremes struck down all bans on inter racial marriage which was leading edge in its day

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

Posted by John | April 15, 2008 8:56 PM

I think we need an "Every Husband Deserves a Wife" column and run ARTICLES ABOUT HUSBANDS BEATING ON THEIR WIVES. ZOMG that would show em.

Posted by Bob | April 15, 2008 9:11 PM

wouldn't that be "Every wife deserves a husband"?

Posted by vooodooo84 | April 15, 2008 10:09 PM

@9 You're talking right and wrong, I'm talking politics, and in politics, the courts are not the most successful way to get what you want. You need to change the minds of the voters, to enough of a degree that legislators feel comfortable voting the right way. After that's done, things are generally okay.

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

Posted by Gitai | April 15, 2008 10:30 PM

I see California is serious about trying to compete with BC for the gay marriage business.

Next up in the gay arms race - Hawaii.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 15, 2008 11:22 PM

Shwarzenegger has said many times that he vetoed the legislation because he didn't want to go against the will of the voters (our Knight Initiative), and that he would wait until the voters revoked the Knight Initiative to approve any marriage equality, so it wouldn't be thrown out by the Court as counter to the Knight Initiative amendments.

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.

Posted by Kat | April 15, 2008 11:22 PM

@8 the california legislature has already put a gay marriage bill on arnold's desk two times. there's clearly legislative support there, so i don't think we should worry about an out-of-step judiciary in this case. i dont buy into the judges-are-bad argument anyway, but i'm just saying even that for those who do, it's a hard case to make in this case, amidst the backdrop of legislative and (trending positive) public support.

Posted by traeden | April 15, 2008 11:55 PM

I think you're all wrong. Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. We deserve better.

Posted by Mr. Poe | April 16, 2008 12:20 AM

@17 - he kills puppies?

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.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 16, 2008 12:47 AM

The Court heard the case, when, March 17? I thought a decision wasn't expected for two to three months. Should we be expecting it sooner than that?

Posted by Lesley | April 16, 2008 12:52 AM

Could they please wait until December 2008? Please?

Posted by chris | April 16, 2008 1:32 AM

#10. I actually don't remember any ruling by the Iowa Supremes in the manner you describe. I'm aware of the Sommers case, which at the state level was about whether "transexuals" were covered by state statutory discrimination law. If that's the case you are referring to you need a primer in the difference between statutory interpretation and constitutional rights.
I think those who claim a court strategy is absolutely wrong ignore the fact that the majority of the Massacusettes and Canadian populations are now solidly pro marriage equality.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | April 16, 2008 5:13 AM

Gay Marriage? i think we should not deny this situation, i saw some nice gothic lifestyle on which is a dating site for goth. different lifestyle they can accept and enjoy it,

Posted by shine | April 16, 2008 6:17 AM

@20 Well...yeah. In 2004, he forced through some ugly thing that forced shelters to reduce the amount of time it kept dogs, from six days to two days. He kills puppies. And he's trying VERY hard to kill public education in CA.

Posted by Kat | April 16, 2008 6:39 AM

no evidence here Arnold knows what the ruling is.

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......

Posted by unPC | April 16, 2008 6:43 AM

Mike, not that one, it was a Medicare case - and I think nowadays we can divine underlying philosophies equally well from opinions that interpret statutes and ones that decide whether they're constitutional.

Posted by Sister Y | April 16, 2008 8:21 AM

Also sorry for calling you deluded,Mike, that was rude. We're all on the same team. I will be really proud if Iowa comes down for marriage equality - shocked, but proud.

Posted by Sister Y | April 16, 2008 8:24 AM

marry ME, mr. poe, and i'll buy you all the PBRs you want!

Posted by scary tyler moore | April 16, 2008 8:55 AM

@10, without Roe, the liberal states would certainly still have legal abortion, but I doubt the conservative ones would. In states like Kansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota, it would never have passed legislatively, and women there would just be SOL. It's true that Roe caused a backlash, but I'm not convinced we'd be better off without it.

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.

Posted by julia | April 16, 2008 1:01 PM

@30, I am in regular contact with ordinary, non-intellectual people, in the form of my vocational students - and you wouldn't believe the stuff they come up with. Abortion is "baby murdering," sure, but a bill to make sexual orientation discrimination illegal in public schools has been turned into a crusade to let boys and girls have sex in 5th grade bathrooms (no exaggeration). I know I'm a snob but there's no logic there.

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.

Posted by Sister Y | April 16, 2008 1:41 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).