Civil unions are a cop out for the craven. We might as well make everyone else's first marriage a 'starter marriage' no harm no foul. A thing either is or is not something. Gay marriage should be marriage. End of sentence. I don't know a Rabbi who would perform one but you might - so have at it.

And no, I think it's a non issue in this election cycle. For one thing, the crazies EXPECT California to do things like this. Secondly the GOP has bigger problems. People are not as likely to boil into the streets gaybashing when everything else is in the shitter too. And it is. Plus it's not a national issue that Congress has to pretend it plans on covering.

Wright is for gay marriage, Obama is against it.

I've always been frustrated by black people who get upset when gay civil rights are likened to black civil rights as if the comparison makes them gay. So sad.

Anyway, this could be a wedge for Hillary. She's got nothing to lose so she may suddenly support gay marriage, whereas Obama with an eye to the General may not want to go there.

Difficult issue politically. Hopefully Barak can raise the discussion. There is some cover in the political blow back that CA has a Republican Governor and 6 of 7 judges who ruled were appointed by Republican Governors. California interpreted the law, not a bad thing to do. I hope SCOTUS finds some social consciousness in the learned precedents and constitutional law they read and rise above the jaundiced lens of their appointments

Why are so many Democrats afraid? Be proud about this advance in human rights, and trumpet it as another step to look past color, sex, or gender preference, and see us all as Americans.

Yes, gay marriage doomed Democrats the first time around — in Massachusetts it doomed them to a string of victories over the anti-gay movement, and doomed them right into the state house.

On the national scene, it doomed Democrats into governorships in places like Montana and Wyoming, and since then the party has been doomed to Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker and Harry Reid as the majority leadership in the Senate. (Okay, the last one is a little doom-y, I'll grant.)

It seems that there was actually a rather small collection of unusually meek and accommodating Democratic politicians that found themselves doomed in 2004, and, strikingly, everyone who took their places has done rather well for themselves since then.

So yeah. More doom, please.

Why is everything deemed to be a problem For Obama? Must he now need to distance himself from a state that voted for Hillary? He has distanced himself from Wright and Hamas and his grandmother while John McCain has without blushing indulged in unprotected pandering, flip flopping and outright lies without a blood test. Even I would not hug GW Bush without a full body condom. How does he get away with it day after day after day. A video is on the net today showing John solemnly recommending that Hamas will have to be at the table and to long shut out. Hypocritical disease carrier.

As we know, many countries are forbidding the same-sex marriage. However, I think it's really great. I have a friend getting married with the same sex under the help of the site "BiLoves". And they live happily and wonderfully.

Amity, you're right, the "again" in the headline was meant ironically but it didn't come off that way, so I changed it.

Thanks for taking a stand, Joan. Civil unions are better than nothing but they'll never give the full fairness and dignity of marriage.

And let's not forget, in 2006 the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down a same-sex marriage decision (unfortunately watered down to civil unions) which everyone lamented was going to doom the Democrats in the mid-term elections, yet Democrats did pretty well that year. Maybe there will be some backlash this time, but I think over the past few years, as more moderate, rational Americans have been introduced to more same-sex families and friends, and seen that Massachusetts has not yet fallen into the ocean, more of them are realizing that same-sex marriage is not a threat to the country, and are seeing the right-wing bluster over the issue for exactly what it is.

It's certainly interesting that they learned exactly NOTHING from what happened in 2004, so it's certainly possible they are going to do the exactly same thing.

I recall thinking in the summer of '04 that the Dems had a terrific candidate (handsome, war hero, articulate) and that the Republicans were poised to lose (idiot, war, economy) -- until they brought this issue into play. I can hear Karl Rove laughing right now as they are starting up the Republican election machine.

There is no guarantee that Obama will win in November, and anyone who is taking this for granted is a fool. They are succumbing to the old McGovern hypothesis -- "I'm voting for him, and all my friends are voting for him and everyone I know (in my little liberal East Coast/West Coast suburb) and therefore, he will win". This thinking ignores the fact that most of the country is stodgy and conservative, religious and traditional. That's why the Republicans have won most of the elections in the last 30 years -- even Bill Clinton was Southern good 'ol boy and a fairly conservative Democrat.

What disturbs me is that all of these "gay marriage victories" are those imposed by courts on states that would (or have, in the case of California) ALREADY rejected gay marriage. Anytime gay marriage is put to a ballot vote, it is defeated by LANDSLIDE majorities.

Gay marriage is not even supported by a majority of GAY AMERICANS -- slightly less than half are in favor of it. If Massachusetts voters were ever actually allowed to vote on the issue, I believe they would reject it and invalidate the gay marriages that have taken place since 2003.

This is not about equality OR civil rights -- it's about protecting a universal social structure that has been in place since humans have walked upright. Every other society (until just the last couple of years) has understood that marriage is a unique relationship between man and woman. There are plenty of other relationships in life; they just are not marriages. Calling them marriages won't make them marriages -- not in the eyes of millions of conservative, traditional married couples who feel this trivializes and diminishes their own relationships.

Gay marriage has been legalized, but has turned out pretty much to be a failure everywhere it's been implemented -- Canada, Spain, The Netherlands. After an initial outburst of people enjoying the experience of thumbing their noses at the rest of society, relatively few gay couples are walking down the aisles. And among those who have already "married", the divorce numbers put any straight couple divorce rate to shame.

I realize it is futile even trying to have a dialogue about this on Salon, because the discussion (and articles) are entirely one-sided. I can't believe you are even quoting Gavin Newsom, who almost singlehandedly gave the last election to Bush!

I guess those who don't pay attention to history, are doomed to repeat it. Again and again.