Comments on Hey, I Was on the Teevee

Arnold has also said he would veto an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. We'll see if he's still in office when/if that happens and if so if he stands by what he originally said.

You can't veto a constitutional amendment. If the voters approve it, that's the end of gay marriage in California.

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

I was watching CNN and said lookee there! Dan Savage is on teevee . . .AGAIN! Dang dude man, seems you are on the idiot box a lot these days. . .Bill M the colbert. . .CNN. . .when you gonna be on FOX!?!!?
but you are doin' good work - making sense and giving people reason to ponder things they don't get. Keep on!

Unless something has changed since yesterday -- which is entirely possible -- the signature count for getting the amendment on the ballot has not been verified. True, it probably will be, but, then again, it might not.

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.

There's one more thing that you both have seemingly gotten wrong: the initiative, as of now, is still not actually on the ballot. While the supporters collected 1.1 million signatures, many signatures are thrown out during the verification stage due to inaccuracies or errors on the part of the signature gatherers. Say for example, some of the signatures are from people from Orange County, whereas others are from people from LA County. I don't know exactly how they do it, but I think the county with less signatures on the form gets thrown out. This goes for illegible signatures, out of state signatures, et cetera. We'll be waiting until around June to see if they truly did get enough signatures (which is entirely possible, but hopefully still won't happen).

Bah I took too long typing. Oh well, just glad someone pointed that out.

Dude, I hope you wiped him off after you came on Jeffrey Toobin.

We should save up our cell phone minutes, because if this thing gets on the ballot, people who believe in equal protection under the law should be mobilizing to make *lots* of phone calls to California voters.

A few things -

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.

You were cute.

I looked on Anderson Cooper's 360 site - no link to this as yet. Can you post one when it's available?

I saw you! You were great, assertive, quick on your feet. I liked that you included single parents in your statements about families. Tony Perkins is a douche.

son of a bitch. i kept telling myself to watch AC360 last night, and even with it's airing after airing all night I still didn't.

blerg.

@4,

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

I heard a legal analyst on KPIX in San Francisco explain that the language used by the justices may make it possible to prevent an initiative from reaching the ballot.

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.

This could be the clip:

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.

@15 The current initiative is a constitutional amendment and can't be unconstitutional by definition.

I think it's important to note that the only reason McCain doesn't support a federal ban is because he's strongly against a overly powerful federal government. It doesn't mean that he's supportive of marriage equality at all.

Tony Perkins is such a douche, he is just a right wing religious nut case that never has a valid point about anything as well as no facts to back-up any of his statements. Perkins looked like such an idiot last night.

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

The Arizona initiative failed in large part because along with same-sex marriage and civil unions, it also banned domestic partnerships, enjoyed by many among the state's large population of unmarried, cohabiting, hetero seniors, who risk screwing up insurance or pension arrangements if they remarry.

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.

MIKE -

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.

MFing good for nothing linkshitpiss

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.

Who's got a link to Dan's appearance on CNN?

Hey, Ma!

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

patrick, you seem very angry based on some of your posts on various threads. maybe you're not, but it comes across that way. you've won. now you should cheer the decision & marry your partner. no need to be confrontational. enjoy these great times.

if you are interested, the clip is on Towleroad. its the second one.

Dan- you Rock!
xoxo

That commercial made me want to throw up. Actually, it made me want to punch John McCain and then throw up on him.

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

@14

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.

I admit I have a harsh tone. I guess I apologize for the tone. I don't apologize for the anger.

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.

Yes, Patrick, I agree. It's not over. There is the possible ballot initiative, which will be defeated. And there are the other 48 states. It's going to take a while, but we'll get there, especially as the influence of the youth increases. ...Sorry to hear about the mishap with the health insurance deductions. It happened to my partner and me. However, my company paid for it. ...Have a great weekend! Cheers!

Dan, your best line:

"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.

re the video link at @15/@16, the bit of legal analysis patrick is referring to starts at 7:00 minutes in.

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.

@2 - you can't pass a constitutional amendment in Cali without a lot more votes than they had last time. It's not a 50.1 percent deal - the bar requires all three votes to a specific percentage or higher.

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 saw it, you didn't suck.

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

Patrick, you hang onto that anger and rage just as long as it takes to get the job done. I love it, and respect you.

Dan -- You were funny, articulate, and you looked great on the teevee. You get a glint in your eye when you're making a smart point -- a pleasure to watch.

Thanks, Boomer. I needed that.

Dan,
You have a very big Adam's Apple....and long fingers.....what could that mean?

I watched CNN last night and you were darling, articulate and even funny!

@ Will, you're wrong. From the California secretary of state:

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.

@17--I'm not sure if that's true. I haven't read Romer v. Evans in a while, but there the Supreme Court invalidated a constitutional amendment in Colorado. I guess the difference is that the Federal Constitution trumps State Constitutions, so although it was constitutional in Colorado it wasn't Federally. So maybe I'm talking out my ass.

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.

How best to donate to help the CA cause?

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

I don't get it: didn't the Supreme Ct rule that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional? Seems to me the voters can't override the constitution, right?

I'd like to make a point about the legalization of gay marriage in California:

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.

You've got a good chance of defeating the amendment. The Massachusetts amendment was defeated by 75% of legislators. I expect it would have been defeated by about 60% of voters, had it gone that far.

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.

DAN! You look so hot on the tube. Anderson had to reign you in a few times. I'm jealous.

I live in AZ, and thank god for the blue dots in the big red state. My city is a blue one, and people voted in droves to make sure that amendment didn't pass. I heard there is going to be a new one next year. That frightens me.

Dan, you did a fantastic job. You deserve to feel proud.

YouTube Link:

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

Thanks for representing all us 'mo's, Dan, I think you did a wonderful job!

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.