Why? Don't you have any idea what that chapel represents? who's symbolic home it is? It is a sacred place, built in tribute to the One God, the guy who is mortally offended by your behavior. If I was facing the possibility of an eternity in hell, I sure wouldn't make Him any angrier. Wise up.

Keep in mind a few things. One is that decision said that it is legal in California to amend the constitution by popular vote. Prop 8 was just the trial case there. This means that we can introduce a public question repealing the previously approved amendment. The 21st amendment to the US constititution repealed the 18th. So we have established precedence.

Another, larger scale idea is that, going back at least as far as the Magna Carta, our history has been one of a slow, albeit imperfect, expansion of basic human rights to include more and more of the population. Voting rights comes to mind immediately, but, anyway history is on our side.

We've lost a round - by a technicallity - in a fight that we will win. The future belongs to freedom.

When did God hire SaltPappy as his spokesperson?

Dear Mr. Morris,

I realize Iowa may not quite have the trendy "cred" of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or even Vermont. But marriage equality is not coming soon to Iowa, it's been a reality for us for a full happy month now (and before, I might add, the state of Maine). Frankly, we're a bit hurt to have been shunted off to the disbelieving "soon, it seems, in Iowa" as if it's unbelievable that a state without a lick of ocean in it could possibly be a civil rights leader.

So come on into Iowa: where we may have plenty of corn, pigs and John Deere fans, but we're also supportive of all, regardless of whom you may choose to love. That alone means I'd rather live here than in sexy California any day.

Sincerely,

Kathleen

I suspect that in a few years, you will be like one of the first families of Australia. You know, founded by criminals and now those folk are the royalty of Oz. Dunno. Smug?

"Even Gov. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, declared after yesterday’s defeat of gay marriage rights in his state that 'one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage.'"

Can't anyone in this country explain to me how he gets to say "the courts should decide this not me" and veto marriage equality twice WHILE Bush, Mitt, etc. run around spewing "activist judges" and "let the people vote" at us about Massachusetts? If he signed off on what the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA'S ELECTED OFFICIALS APPROVED AND SENT TO HIM TWICE, then the argument against marriage equality would have been framed VERY DIFFERENTLY. His two-faced appeal to the GLBT is absolutely hollow. And BTW Arnie, the courts DID recognize marriage for same sex couples. It already happened.

So his statement is as pathetic as Miss CA claiming "in this country I beleive we have a choice..." when WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE IN THIS COUNTRY.

CA needs a Democratic Governor first and foremost if this is going to be overturned/reversed/whatever term you want. Of course, CA also needs to check ALL petitions through their legislature--the elected officials of the public that know better than the mob.

God is a "guy"? Not a supreme and unknowable being, just a "guy" like the rest of us. That's a comfort.

Plus, he really hates it when Bill puts his thing in Mike. Really pisses him off. He hates it so much, that he consigns Bill and Mike to an eternity (that's forever) in torment.

Nice. Makes we want to join up.

I am confused by the formulation "the five year old daughter of my legal husband." That's either your daughter, or your step-daughter. Or at least that's how most people would refer to such a relationship. The wording seems oddly detached and doesn't really reassure me that the non-biological parental relationship is as "equal" as I'm supposed to declare it is, being a good liberal and all.

yesterday I was furious. There are days when the bigots and haters and phobophiles just fall like bricks into my psyche.

I had all my usual rants along the lines of why do bigots get to pick the rules? why does it matter to them who marries who? why is it that überschinken like larry craig, mark foley, ted haggard and bob allen get to participate in the glorious tradition of marriage but people who aren't lying assfaced hypocrites, people who are actually honest and actually love the person they are with are denied?

but today there is more clarity. If history shows us anything, it is always the small minded and mean spirited who ultimately lose. Sure, they get a few good jabs in there, sometimes they win a bloody battle or two, but in the end, right and good always wins.

And we are winning! It's slow, but we are leaps and bounds beyond where we were 10 years ago! We are light years away from where we were in 1973, the year I was born.

Every argument thrown at us by the anti-gay contingency has been easily shown for what it is, a desperate attempt to use fear, stereotypes and specious reasoning to stop something that does not actually affect them.

To the fundamentalists I say this: If marriage is so sacred then where are your attempts to criminalize divorce? If marriage is a long standing tradition meant to create families and raise children, where are your attempts to criminalize child free by choice couples? Why do you allow some traditions to fade, like bride price/dowry, poll taxes, debtors prisons, but not others?

The world didn't end when women started wearing pants, it didn't end when high schoolers were allowed to hold a dance, it didn't end when Canada recognized the legitimacy of same sex relationships...it's certainly not going to end if it happens here.

I feel optimistic, optimistic enough to believe that the change will happen in my lifetime.