Gay marriage comes to California

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It started at 5pm Pacific Time in a few counties.

Marrying after 55 years together:

[exopolitician]

[ChrisFromNJ]

I am very happy to see this.

[Reluctant Republican]

How many straight marriages have fallen apart so far because of this?

All kidding aside though, great news. And nice to see people as committed as those women finally being able to take that final step in commitment in there relationship. But I'm a hopeless romantic, as I've said before.

[7,052,770]

Excellent.  We need them in Mississippi too though.

[Tender Branson]

Excellent.  We need them in Mississippi too though.

Harry, when this happens, you'll be as old as the couple above.

[King]

Here comes the neighborhood.

[Aizen]

So what will be the next states to legalize gay marriage? Vermont? Rhode Island? Washington?

[Nym90]

Excellent.  We need them in Mississippi too though.

Harry, when this happens, you'll be as old as the couple above.

Probably true, though I'm sure 50 years ago people would have said the same thing about civil rights for blacks in Mississippi.

[Meeker]

So what will be the next states to legalize gay marriage? Vermont? Rhode Island? Washington?

I doubt it'll be here, we just passed a compromise in the Legislature. My suspicion is that it's going to be another case of a court ordering it, and who knows where that'll come from. There's yet to be a case of the Legislature of a state doing it.

Random question I've been wondering for a while to those smarter than me on these matters: Can a portion of a state constitution be overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional?

[John Dibble]

Random question I've been wondering for a while to those smarter than me on these matters: Can a portion of a state constitution be overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional?

Yes, provided it violates the federal Constitution, either explicitly or is in violation of a federal law where the Constitution grants the federal government supreme authority on the matter. (in the latter case you could enhance such a federal law at a state level, but you couldn't make a law that is contrary to it)

This would mean that an amendment to the federal constitution that legalizes same-sex marriages would overturn all state constitutional amendments that ban it, or alternatively one that bans it would overturn rulings regarding their own constitutions that end up legalizing it.

[JSojourner]

Wonderful news.  I wish them all the best of luck.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This really doesn't bother me a bit......but it's a divisive issue in general, and it's "game on" for those who want to turn this into a fight.

My opinion is - if no one else is being hurt by it - let it be done.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now it's come to every county. The first gay marriage at the Contra Costa clerk's office was the clerk's.

[Downwinder]

Some of you guys are way too attached to your ideology.  The picture above is SICK and looks like something you would see in the Pyramids.  Barf.  It's a good thing that gays don't reproduce.

Good Christ, you are a fracking idiot.  Like most of your posts, I can't quite make heads or tales of the above, other than a bunch of regurgitated, right-wing, lunatic radio talking points.  Also, gays don't need to reproduce--we are made through good, old-fashioned, heterosexual intercourse.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Some of you guys are way too attached to your ideology.  The picture above is SICK and looks like something you would see in the Pyramids.  Barf.  It's a good thing that gays don't reproduce.

Good Christ, you are a fracking idiot.  Like most of your posts, I can't quite make heads or tales of the above, other than a bunch of regurgitated, right-wing, lunatic radio talking points.  Also, gays don't need to reproduce--we are made through good, old-fashioned, heterosexual intercourse.

Good heavens, a Utah gay!  I never knew one existed.  You must live in the remote mountains, preying on wounded cowboys and the like.  You sick bastard.

Anyway, back to gays.  Nothing against them, but I hate them.  I mean seriously.  You see homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but only when there's no mates around or when the animal is so pathetic that it can't get anything else.  Come on, a good Utah girl can't be hard to find.  Now why don't you stop playing your silly grab-ass games and go settle down?

That was probably the hardest I ever laughed reading something on the forum.  I saw "Gay Marriage Comes to CA" and last post by Vander Blubb and knew something hilarious was coming

[Ban my account ffs!]

Some of you guys are way too attached to your ideology.  The picture above is SICK and looks like something you would see in the Pyramids.  Barf.  It's a good thing that gays don't reproduce.

Good Christ, you are a fracking idiot.  Like most of your posts, I can't quite make heads or tales of the above, other than a bunch of regurgitated, right-wing, lunatic radio talking points.  Also, gays don't need to reproduce--we are made through good, old-fashioned, heterosexual intercourse.

Good heavens, a Utah gay!  I never knew one existed.  You must live in the remote mountains, preying on wounded cowboys and the like.  You sick bastard.

Anyway, back to gays.  Nothing against them, but I hate them.  I mean seriously.  You see homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but only when there's no mates around or when the animal is so pathetic that it can't get anything else.  Come on, a good Utah girl can't be hard to find.  Now why don't you stop playing your silly grab-ass games and go settle down?

That was probably the hardest I ever laughed reading something on the forum.  I saw "Gay Marriage Comes to CA" and last post by Vander Blubb and knew something hilarious was coming

Well looky here!  The forum trash dun come out of the woodwork!

[Verily]

So what will be the next states to legalize gay marriage? Vermont? Rhode Island? Washington?

Rhode Island, New Mexico or New York are IMO the most likely. All three recognize out-of-state marriages but have no civil union provisions of their own. Hawaii (where the legal debate started in 1996) is also possible, as they grant some rights but not equal rights.

Other than those, states with statutes similar to the one in California which could have a court ruling overturn them include Illinois, Florida, Maryland, Delaware, Minnesota, Iowa and Arizona. Plus some states where I think such a ruling would be highly unlikely (or else would be likely to be overturned by an amendment to the state constitution).