Here's the problem with contemporary media: writers are so desperate to say something "provocative", they'll throw around meaningless phrases like "I'm over you, straight world!" in order to generate buzz. What, exactly, is the thesis of this piece? Can you express in a sentence what the point is? That head, however effective it may be for getting people riled up, has very little to do with the content of this post (such as it is.) Blah.

Content? What content? All I get is a 404 page not found.

I think it's a great little essay, and I totally get it. Louis, I seriously hope the rest of America catches up with you in my lifetime.

...what exactly is Bayard trying to say here? He starts out with strong statements like:

But here's the deal. The California Supreme Court hasn't told me anything I don't already know, and it hasn't told you guys anything you necessarily want to hear

but then he fails to deliver. What exactly is it that we don't want to hear? This is never explained. Nothing like make broad, unsupported and unsubstantiated slurs against an entire class of people based on their (straight) sexual orientation...

Later he says:

For many years -- too many to count, really -- we were told our relationships were unworthy of legal recognition because they were too different from marriage; now we're told our relationships are unworthy of recognition because they're too similar to marriage -- so very similar that they might kill off marriage altogether.

What is this supposed to mean? Does it mean that he approves of the CASC decision or that he disapproves? Is he trying to say that legalizing gay marriage is a bad thing or a good thing? It's just not clear.

I'm guessing the takeaway is supposed to be that it's condescending to expect gays and lesbians to be grateful and happy about this ruling, because it amounts to the straight community "giving" them rights that they already should have had (and, indeed, do have by the very nature of just being human). I think there's something to that idea, but it's not very well explored by this article. Instead, the whole thing just comes across as petulant and whiny, and in need of some editing... but then, that's the Salon we've all come to know and love recently, I suppose.

To me a court ruling such as this says that people do not get to vote on whether other people get to have the same rights they do, by putting a constitutional amendment on a ballot. Any time courts stand up for this principle I am happy.

"The wedding trope is particularly nonsensical because, for several generations, gay couples have been showing America how marriages can be created without benefit of weddings. You may have seen us. Signing onto mortgages and joint checking accounts. Hosting barbecues, buying cars, planning for retirement. Starting families or not starting them. Wondering where the years have gone. Without any blessing from the state, we've married each other; we're just waiting for the rest of America to catch up.

And when the election's over? We'll still be here. Come up and see us sometime."

....Which is exactly why the judgement could have waited.

Peace and love to you though.

This is a huge deal because it's more than about getting married.

sorry you're too flippant and self absorbed to see so. Maybe it's because your partner of many years doesn't want to marry you ? Just in case ? Divorce is a pain in the ass.

Sure some will rush off to marry just because they can - kids with a new toy thinking,but like in Mass. it will settle down to reality.

and marriage has it's benefits -- like it or not. benefits you can't have just living together no matter how much legal input you get.

Your reminding me of an old queen that has nothing better to do but complain . If it's raining you'd complain. Sunny ? complain. I have a grandmother like that.

I don't find this article half as cryptic as some people seem to. The point is that it has become a political football and a flash point in the culture wars. Gay marriage is real, it exists de facto and the fact that the state refuses to recognize it is esentially telling gays and lesbians that they will be ok as long as they accept an inferior status. How many gays and lesbians choose to have a legal marriage is not relavant. What is relevant is our government basically telling us the civilian equivalent of don't ask don't tell.

although it's wonderful that the decision in california was made today, i think the best point in this article is the insistence that the private lives of a large segment of the population should not be used as a scare tactic or a political wedge. it's a matter of equality-a fundamental issue that i care deeply about. although i want to see a democrat in the white house, this issue needs to be addressed and addressed now! this article isn't just about being grateful that gay marriage is legal, the fact is that the larger context of this decision is the political fallout, which is being discussed on both sides. this is an issue that needs to be framed in a new way-it is not ok for the rights and identities of individuals to be dismissed. everyone is entitled to their opinion but when those opinions impact the civil rights of another, they should not be enforced through law. it's time that people started standing up for the right of gay marriage and stopped asking the queer community to wait for its turn.

I completely sympathize with the author's frustration. Once a year, when one state or another allows gay marriage or civil unions or some other option for gay couples to make their relationships official, there is a media firestorm. The other 364 days of the year, I go about my essentially married life. We have the mortgage and the rings and, most importantly, the life-long commitment to each other. We go to work and make dinner and walk the dog. But one day a year, we can't turn on the television without being reminded just how different we are as a bunch of (mostly straight) talking heads pontificate about what our lives mean for the rest of the straight population.

Now, I don't want to sound ungrateful. I cried when Massachusetts allowed gay marriage, and there were a couple tears in my eyes even today. But it's time for the straight liberals out there to stop being so afraid of us. It's been four years since you all blamed us for the 2004 election. Do you know any truly liberal person who doesn't believe in gay marriage? But they're not celebrating today, they're cringing. Because in today's political landscape, we no longer care about principles, we care about elections. And people are standing on television again today talking about how my rights are going to cost us this election. When did we stop being people and start being talking points?

After the 2004 election, I was in the the camp saying "it's not worth it." I thought it was worth giving up my right for the "good of the country." And then I attended a friends (straight) wedding. And I was shocked at how difficult it was to be there, watching her stand before her friends, family and the state and have everyone celebrate her relationship. The jealousy is intense. And the anger.

So my frustration is not that today's decision shouldn't be a news story, but we shouldn't be talking with dread about what effects this could have on the election in November. We should be celebrating, because the state of California stood up today and said "separate but equal is STILL not acceptible." And any day that the constitution is re-validated is a day for celebration. When the news channels start covering that, I'll stop being frustrated.