Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Meanwhile in California


oh how happy i am that california has handed the GOP back their 2004 get-out-the-bigot-vote wedge issue. i can't wait for this issue to dominate the presidential campaign instead of, for instance, ENDING THE FUCKING WAR & SAVING THE PLANET FOR HUMAN LIFE.

Posted by max solomon | June 3, 2008 9:23 AM

I hopped in the car one day and just busted out "it's over". And I knew I was going to leave him at our commitment ceremony.

Cold is common.

Posted by Mr. Poe | June 3, 2008 9:23 AM

Kill your idols, Dan. There is no gay Sidney Poitier, and why would you want there to be?

Posted by elenchos | June 3, 2008 9:24 AM

Didn't the Cal Supreme Court rule not allowing gay marriage was unconstitutional? How can the voters overrule the Constitution?

Posted by Dianna | June 3, 2008 9:30 AM

@2 Yeah, but it's still pretty cold when you are on the receiving end of it.

Posted by PopTart | June 3, 2008 9:33 AM

OK I realize what I posted didn't make sense, try this instead, yeah cold is pretty common but it still hurts like a bitch when you are on the receiving end of it.

Posted by PopTart | June 3, 2008 9:35 AM

@4 if they make are Constitional amendment then it won't be unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

4 Dan: Ellen has the right ot failed relationships just like everybody else. Every relationship ends until one doesn't (or does by death instead of break-up, meaning that it was successful.) Yes, I read your book where you make the same point.

We gays should have the right to get marriage and get divorced in the same way straight couples do. Making fun of statements of other people's love is like shooting a fish in a barrel, it's easy and boring. (Unless they've been together for a mere few months, then they are asking to be made fun of.)

Posted by Clearlyhere | June 3, 2008 9:42 AM

Meh. Whatever. She'll get married. In a few years she might get divorced. Sort of like every other straight celebrity. Sounds fine to me.

In the mean time, she is taking the wind out of the fundy's sails like nobody else can. It's awesome to watch.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | June 3, 2008 9:48 AM

what max said. i wish we could just TEMPORARILY back-burner gay marriage and abortion until we get these goddamned repugicans out of our lives. is it so much to ask?

Posted by ellarosa | June 3, 2008 9:49 AM

So the only thing needed to amend the California constitution is a simple majority from a public referendum? I'm confused as I thought most states required some combination of super majority from public votes as well as both sides of their state legislature. Or maybe we just lucked out in Mass.

Posted by um | June 3, 2008 9:50 AM
A researcher at the UCLA estimates that gay marriage could inject $370 million into the state’s economy over the next three years

That's interesting, because I always thought that economics was one of the reasons that so many people opposed gay marriage (besides bigotry, of course).

Sure $370 million in wedding planning, but what about insurance payouts, pensions, etc? You know, the stuff a spouse usually gets after you die? I figure that's in the billions and billions.

Posted by Mahtli69 | June 3, 2008 9:56 AM

@1 & 9, Guys, this is California. I don't think there's a chance McCain is going to win the state. Already polls are saying this amendment is going down. And Ellen's not even married yet! Once people see gay people married, once there are happy articles about gay couples in the papers, it will be even harder for people to vote for the amendment.

@10, yes, unfortunately California is REALLY into direct democracy.

Posted by arduous | June 3, 2008 9:57 AM

All I know is Portia is FUCKING HOT!

Posted by Mike in MO | June 3, 2008 10:00 AM


Well, insurance payouts would be the same. You can make anyone your beneficiary, whether your married or not. And I bet Republicans would like to shitcan pensions entirely, but that probably won't stop them from using pensions as an excuse to deny gays marriage rights.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 3, 2008 10:03 AM

Has the court in California decided on the temporary injunction yet?

I'll bet that the bigots pour milllions of dollars into this campaign. If they lose and marriage equality survives in the largest state in the union then it is all over for them on this issue.

How about we all pledge our tax rebates to the campaign to defeat this amendment?

Posted by Heather | June 3, 2008 10:11 AM

@11, California already has domestic partnership which offers gay people pretty much the full benefits of marriage (except for the name.)

So the economic impact in terms of those benefits is going to be nill. It's already there.

Posted by arduous | June 3, 2008 10:12 AM

Um, how is that any different than just about any other person you know? I mean, a bit immature, but I know plenty of people who are in their 20s, 30s, and 40s who still act like dumbass teenagers when it comes to relationships.

Posted by Gitai | June 3, 2008 10:13 AM

@12: the no-gay-marriage initiatives weren't on every state ballot in 2004, but it sure dominated the campaign & fueled the ignorant bigot turnout nationwide.

if i were BHO, i'd say it's an issue for each state to determine for itself, & not germaine to a campaign for a federal office. and then i'd have to explain what germaine meant to the voters of WV & KY.

Posted by max solomon | June 3, 2008 10:35 AM

The only people who should be banned from marriage are celebrities.

Posted by Sirkowski | June 3, 2008 10:45 AM

@18, no it wasn't. But there's a huge difference between 2004 where it was on multiple ballots, including the hugely important swing state of Ohio and 2008 where it on one ballot right now, the decidedly not swing state of CA.

Besides the fact that attitudes to gay marriage have changed markedly in the past four years. Remember that just a couple years ago, Arizona defeated a gay marriage ban. ARIZONA! Tides are turning.

Posted by arduous | June 3, 2008 10:51 AM

Maybe Ellen felt obligated to say she was in love so that she didn't invalidate her relationship (too many people in this country don't consider a homosexual relationships valid, I'm sure she's aware).

Or maybe she just felt like it wasn't anyone's business. Would you want to discuss your rocky romantic life with Stone Phillips?

Posted by Lauren | June 3, 2008 11:45 AM

@16 - Domestic partnership ... that's what ALL marriages, heterosexual and homosexual alike, should be in the eyes of our government (that is, our secular government).

Posted by Mahtli69 | June 3, 2008 12:08 PM

Question to all:
Can one be against gay marriage and NOT be a bigot (homophobic)? If one is against gay marriage but exhibits no other kind of antipathy towards gays then it kind of sounds like "You are either for me or against me". It puts politicians (vs. private citizens) on the hot seat.

Posted by lark | June 3, 2008 1:06 PM

lark, one can be against state sanctioned marriage period, but it doesnt make sense to split hairs based on the sexual orientation of the marrying couple.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 3, 2008 1:37 PM

Who knows what the F was going on behind closed doors. Get a F'in life, losers, and pass judgement on yourselves.

Posted by dw | June 3, 2008 1:38 PM

@ #23 It sounds like you just want the ability to have control just for the sake of it. Go stand in front or a mirror by yourself and you will see the only person in the world who you can ever control.

Posted by Merlin | June 3, 2008 2:29 PM

Gee Wiz. if you oppose the right of an interracial couple to marry does that make one a racist? see how stupid you sound 23?

forget the mirror thing 26 suggested. I doubt your ability to even control yourself.

Posted by Heather | June 3, 2008 2:51 PM

Heather my dear clearly, you didn't answer my question. You sound about as rational as a bigot. But, then that's not surprising considering your condescension prohibits you from rational discourse. Please spare the bullshit. Sheesh!

Posted by lark | June 3, 2008 3:12 PM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. "The people" have absolutely NO earthly business voting on this or any other civil rights issue. Those advocating for this audaciously unnecessary and altogether insulting amendment are clearly and conveniently failing to ask themselves how they would feel if their right to be with and marry the one they loved were put to a popular vote. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've confronted opposers with this specific countermeasure. What genuinely amuses me is the fact that NONE of them can ever dredge up any personal feelings regarding that question. They apparently all must view their own marriages as just as equally open to public opinion! I'd like to believe they would be just as outraged as we are by this looming ballot. But you would never know, listening to all the outdated psuedo-religious claptrap these people constantly use to bolster their indifference. These idiots actually have the gall to declare that we, the gay community, are trampling their rights and destroying the fiber of this country! Well, what about OUR rights as fellow red-blooded, air-breathing human beings? Does "live and let live" and "love thy neighbor" mean absolutely nothing anymore? The type of America these tyrants, call them what they are, seem to want goes against everything my own two parents raised me to believe a free nation was all about. The type of America I see these people pushing for is more akin to Nazi Germany than anything else. For them to so casually toss us aside and call us the oppressors is highly absurd!

Maybe I'm just allowing my anger and frustration to rise up here and, if that's the case with all of you here, then I do apologize. But I am still SO extremely sick and tired of these self-righteous hate-spreading bible-thumpers, who are all--more than likely--the same ones who pushed to get this on the November ballots! That book was written thousands of years ago, by flesh and blood mortal men, for a completely different culture that no longer exists. Why can't they just form their own opinions about life? Does nobody think for themselves anymore, or has that simply become a lost concept? They preach on and on about how we "indoctrinate" and "corrupt" their children, and yet these are the exact same people who intentionally raise their own kids to shun and despise whole cross-sections of society simply because they were raised that way! If that's not indoctrination, in and of itself, I don't know what is. Now that we know this amendment is going to be voted on, I can only hope the more rational-minded members of society will see it's bigotry-steeped origins for what they are and effectively vote no. This isn't the middle-ages. We don't stone our disobedient kids or shun everything the writers of the bible considered to be sin anymore. This is 2008. Society should PROgress, not regress.

That's why I strongly believe we should all do everything we can, as Geoff Kors has already mandated, to keep the biased citizenry from enshrining this bill into law. You don't even have to believe in marriage, if that's not what you want for yourself. But, I feel to at least have the legal option to marry the one you love would still be a good thing. I'll certainly do my part to vote it down in November. But I think we already all know it's going to take considerably more than just one or even a small handful of people. The California Supreme Court ruled in our favor. Now, we have to do everything humanly possible to ensure that it sticks.

Posted by Brian | June 3, 2008 3:26 PM

Lark, opposing the rights sam sex people to get married makes you a bigot. Clearly you do not understand that this is not something you have a say over. Only the couple involved can make this decision.

I don't care if "some of your best friends" are gay or if you attend pride marches every year. If you are under the illusion that you can determine limits on our rights then go to hell.

Posted by Heather | June 3, 2008 3:35 PM

p.s. people like Lark no longer call the shots for people like me.

Posted by Heather | June 3, 2008 3:45 PM

I wish the mainstream media would stop concentrating on Ellen De Generes. Ellen was not a plaintiff in the case which gave the green light to gay marriage. It was someone called Gaffney and his partner.

As a gay man, I find it offensive that the mainstream media concentrates on Ellen. She gets enough publicity through her show. The media needs to start concentrating on ordinary Californians, not Ellen.

Posted by jason | June 3, 2008 4:17 PM

Lark -
You may well be a homophobe, can't say for sure since I can't see inside your heart, but one thing is for sure: you are not rational. You are simultaneously holding beliefs that contradict each other - you claim you have absolutly nothing against gay people, but at the same time you believe we shouldn't have the same rights you have. Which, if you ask me, means you have something against gay people. Not that there's anything wrong with being irrational. You're only human. Just like me!

Posted by bobbo | June 3, 2008 4:52 PM

Oh, 32. Yes, that's what we need. We need the telegenic woman whom Middle America loves and whose audience consists almost exclusively of white, middle-class, straight housewives to be left out of the is conversation. We don't want people who like Ellen finding out that marriage equality is a good thing because of that. No, we want nobodies that haven't been vetted in front of the cameras.

Actually, no we don't. Please stop complaining that we have the best possible spokesperson for this cause. Ellen marrying Portia is the reason we will prevail in the election and I'll take that and say, "Thanks, Ellen!"

And you feel so strongly that the "real people" behind this should be spotlighted, that you don't even know their names???

Posted by whatevernevermind | June 3, 2008 5:41 PM

Thanks for answering my question. For the record, I have no problem with gays (or anyone else) marrying. I merely asked a question. Now, you are officially off the rational radar and on the ranter radar while presently serving time (eternity?) in hell.

Yes, like you I'm human. But, for the record, I merely asked a question (@23). I never said I was against gay marriage in the above entries. How is that irrational????
If being for or against gay marriage is the all or nothing issue then fine you've answered my question. But, consider this such things as bigotry and irrationality aren't confined just to people who are either for or against gay marriage. Just ask Heather.

Damn, this SLOG is intense.

Posted by lark | June 3, 2008 5:43 PM

Ellen is entitled to have her time in the sun. But she gets it through her show, which is ample. Let's focus more on the ordinary Californians who fought to win this case in the CA Supreme Court, such as the actual plaintiffs.

If we concentrate too much on Ellen, we are trivializing the marriage issue and contributing to our defeat. We need to stop concentrating on Ellen and the media needs to stop concentrating on Ellen.

Posted by adam | June 3, 2008 8:09 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.