Arnold has twice vetoed gay marriage legislation. But he has pledged not to support this initiative.

And if the idiot in Sacramento had followed the will of the people as evidenced by their elected representatives, we wouldn't be in this race to the finish now.

1. Yep, saw you on TV last night
2. I think there is a good chance, even if it is put on the ballot, that the amendment won't pass.
3.Tony Perkins is a huge head douchebag. His last minute comment about having a mom and a dad verse having same sex parents is BS. You handled yourself well after being cut off.

blerg.

If the idiot in Sacramento had followed the will of the people, the wingnuts would still be pushing a Constitutional amendment.

She said that the court made it clear that all citizens have the right to marry and any legislation or initiative on the part of voter to impede that right would be unconstitutional and invalid.

I don't know who she is or if she is right, but it is worth looking into and I'm sure the lawyers are looking into it.

http://cbs5.com/video/?cid=129

Even if it is a debatable point, it still could be argued in court long enough to keep off the November ballot.

That will keep the Obamaphiles happy.

Hopefully the rest of the country will follow in California's footsteps, in finally ending the ban on gay-marriage in America.

Only a few states, like Virginia, have gotten away with marriage bans that draconian, and California's proposed constitutional amendment doesn't risk similar blowback from self-interested old people.

The best argument in CA may be several months of valid marriages at the time of the election, serving to reverse the status quo to some extent. It'll be close.

Are you a judge hired as a legal analyst for a local newstation?

If not, I think you ought to hear what one has to say.

Click on the link.

on the page of that link, at the bottom left corner dated May 15 at 7:19pm is a clip titled: "CBS5 legal analyst on gay marriage ruling"

I hope you can find it...it should be seen.

That Dan Savage fella's in the moving picture box!

To think I used to have something approaching respect for that man in '99/'00.

Yes, but my point was "we wouldn't be in this race to the finish now", meaning we might not have had a mere handful of months to fight it and it definitely wouldn't have happened during a presidential election year. Timing is everything.

Anyway, it doesn't matter since Ellen is marrying Portia now so we've won this thing no matter what. Who's going to want to break up Ellen's marriage? Not her middle-class white housewife base, that's for sure.

The decision is worthy of celebration and of recognition. Remember: four years ago Dianne Feinstein said it was "too much too fast and too soon" for gay marriage. Apparently - at least in her state - it is not any of those things. In fact, if you read the decision, it seems that we have been denied rights for too long.

I have a friend that has had to move to England to be with her partner becuase the laws of this country prevent her from having a relationship that is granted equal recognition. Coincidentally on Wednesday this week, my partner was informed by his employer that they have been undercharging him for insuring me - his domestic partner. As of this weeks paycheck he will now pay $400 + dollars (pre tax) per month to insure me. That is because the IRS does not recognize my right to equal protections that the supreme court of california says I have the right to expect.

Happy times? Sure! I saw hundreds and hundreds of people dancing in the Castro last night to celebrate. Where were all those idiots over the past 4 years at marriage rallies? There were more attendees last night than Ive seen at any rally.

I'm thrilled. It is not over. People unaffected by this ruling are far too quick to think its this easy.

"They're not coming to pee in the batter of your wedding cake."

Doing live interviews like that can't be easy. I can make rational arguments in writing when I have time to think about what I'm going to say, but I'm terrible at thinking on my feet like that in a live interview. You did well.

and patrick, thanks for posting that video link. i never watch the news on TV, but reading about this decision just wasn't as powerful as seeing couples reacting to the decision. i had to blink back tears.

Kind of like why Tim Eyman can't pass constitutional amendments in Washington State - he doesn't have ANY of the numbers he needs for the House, Senate, or the People.

I distinctly remember thinking "damn it seems hard to have any sort of dialogue with that ass; Dan's doing a good job!"

Often referred to as "direct democracy," the initiative process is the power of the people to place measures on the ballot. These measures can either create or change statutes (including general obligation bonds) and amend the California Constitution. If the initiative proposes to amend California statute, signatures of registered voters gathered must equal in number to 5% of the votes cast for all candidates for Governor in the previous gubernatorial election. If the initiative proposes to amend the California Constitution, signatures of registered voters gathered must equal in number to 8% of the votes cast for all candidates for Governor in the previous gubernatorial election. An initiative requires a simple majority of the public's vote to be enacted.

The stupid thing is that it's almost easier to get a constitutional amendment passed than a bill. All you need are enough votes for a constitutional amendment. To get a bill through, you've got to survive the legislature and the senate and a veto, avoiding filibusters etc on the way.

It's silly. The whole point of a constitution is that it should be rules that are hard to change. Amending the US Constitution is like that. So too with the Canadian. But the idea that you can just get the masses to vote 50%+1 and bang, the founding document is changed is just nuts.

And I missed you and Anderson on the lookity box last night, dang it.

Until now, Spain has been the largest country (population 40 million) that has legalized same-sex marriage.

Now, with California (37 million) and Massachusetts (6 million) legalizing it, the US can claim the lead!

This is a major step forward, on a global scale.

Massachusetts was in a better position, because it takes a long time to "process" an amendment, there, so the people had a long time to get used to the idea of same-sex marriage. And what a lot of people realized during that time was that it didn't actually make any difference to straight people whether or not gays got married. And the corporations, having already changed all their employee benefits and stuff, didn't want the administrative hassle of doing it all again. It turned out that not all that many gay couples wanted to get married anyway, and very few of them included an unemployed partner with an expensive illness, which was the only thing corporations were really afraid of.

If you could delay that constitutional amendment by even one year you'd be in a better position in CA. But CA is fairly liberal, and you've got a decent shot as it is.

YouTube Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JbBbXD576M&feature=related

One thing struck me in this whole conversation, though; the debate is about marriage; not about parenthood.

If the fundies really want to cling to their made up statistics about mother this and father that, let them. That's the adoption agency's/sperm bank's territory. (Us 'mo's are incapable of bringing a child into our family by ourselves anyway, as these fundies are quick to point out!)

THIS conversation is about things like visitation and inheritance for my partner of 7 years were one of us to fall terminally ill, and all the rest of the gaggle of rights that married couples get.