Will others follow?

**sensitiveguy** · 05-16-2008, 06:57 AM

WASHINGTON — A California Supreme Court decision Thursday overturning the state's ban on gay marriage could energize efforts nationwide to legalize same-sex marriage and put a spotlight on the issue in November's presidential election that probably will galvanize activists on both sides.

After a similar court decision in Massachusetts in 2003, Republicans used support for traditional marriage to invigorate social conservatives, most importantly in the key battleground state of Ohio during the last presidential election.

A nationwide Gallup Poll taken last week shows opposition to same-sex unions has not eased, and the voters most likely to say it could affect their vote are almost all opposed to gay marriage.

The 4-3 California court ruling sets no legal precedent beyond California's borders. Yet the decision allowing gay marriage in the most populous state — which takes effect in 30 days — is likely to reverberate nationwide.

"It's a very dramatic decision and one that will be regarded as highly controversial," says Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe, who has long argued for gay civil rights.

Tribe said the expansive 121-page decision could "have a persuasive effect in other states" and counters any notion of Massachusetts being peculiarly alone.

Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, who favors marriage only for opposite-sex couples, agreed that the impact could be enormous. "This is an engine that will produce a large number of marriage licenses," he said, adding that some couples would eventually move to other states and try to assert the validity of their licenses.

Federal and state laws say states need not recognize gay marriages from elsewhere, but those laws have yet to be tested.

The California court rejected arguments about the importance of preserving traditional marriage and said, "The exclusion of same-sex couples from … marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children."

Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority that the right to marry "is of fundamental significance" and cannot be denied to couples based on their sexual orientation.

A proposed ballot initiative in California this November would attempt to reverse Thursday's decision by defining marriage as between only a man and a woman.

The potential repercussions of the gay-marriage debate are complicated. The issue could unite social conservatives who haven't been enthusiastic about the presidential election.

Yet moves against gay marriage could put Republicans at odds with voters in the Rocky Mountain states, a battleground region where many voters have live-and-let-live attitudes. Such action could propel young voters, who tend to be more accepting of gay marriage, toward Democrats.

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain is on record opposing a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, putting him at odds with conservative activists on the issue. McCain, who supports defining marriage as between a man and a woman, says the issue should be left to the states.

Both Democratic contenders, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, support civil unions but oppose gay marriage.

"Americans are still fundamentally ambivalent about gay rights," says Lydia Saad, senior editor of the Gallup Poll. "They certainly … think homosexual relations should be legal, but when it comes to things that cut closer to the bone, that deal with marriage and children, the balance of opinion is still on the other side."

**sensitiveguy** · 05-16-2008, 07:04 AM

Will the rest of the country follow suit? Will this soon become the norm like interracial marriage?

**BISHOP** · 05-16-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sensitiveguy

Will the rest of the country follow suit? Will this soon become the norm like interracial marriage?

SG, I don't think interracial marriage is the "norm". It's accepted...not by all but, it is between a man and a woman so it's a bit more accepted. I say we're 10-20 years away from legal gay marriage.

**TUCKER** · 05-16-2008, 11:40 AM

As some of the people interviewed stated, the court system overstepped its jurisdiction in this case, imo, because it overruled and directly contradicted the stated will of the people. This ruling will also open up several legal issues also, ie, social security benefits, life insurance, widowers pensions, paternity, etc. Those are a few of the issues that've made this union unacceptable in many states already. Not to mention the biggest one, castaway morality!

**cc5k** · 05-16-2008, 09:19 PM

In general, I think we're on our way. And the nation typically follows suit when California sets social precedents.

However, this has the potential to backfire. Even in liberal California, the majority of people still do NOT support gay marriage, which means if this gets on the November ballot it could be overturned by the voters. If that happens, you can tack on at least another decade to this whole process.

**huggylowdown** · 05-18-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sensitiveguy

Will the rest of the country follow suit? Will this soon become the norm like interracial marriage?

hope not b/c I hate gays. hope not b/c I hate mutts.

**TUCKER** · 05-18-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huggylowdown

hope not b/c I hate gays. hope not b/c I hate mutts.

hmmmm, cops, gays and mutts.....thats a lot o hatin anyway you look at it aint it?

**cc5k** · 05-18-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huggylowdown

hope not b/c I hate gays. hope not b/c I hate mutts.

The ones that say they "hate gays" are usually the ones taking it in the ass on the down low. ...I'm just sayin.

**TUCKER** · 05-18-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cc5k

The ones that say they "hate gays" are usually the ones taking it in the ass on the down low. ...I'm just sayin.

hmmmm, huggydownlow or huggylowdown, hmmmm (wink) damn I miss the smilies!

**huggylowdown** · 05-18-2008, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cc5k

The ones that say they "hate gays" are usually the ones taking it in the ass on the down low. ...I'm just sayin.

naw thats u and your punk,tucker.

**TUCKER** · 05-19-2008, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huggylowdown

naw thats u and your punk,tucker.

Really now?, his huh?

**sensitiveguy** · 05-19-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huggylowdown

hope not b/c I hate gays. hope not b/c I hate mutts.

I guess I missed this comment. Huggy, in an effort to be the polite guy that I am let me just say that the term “mutt” is offensive to me and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t use it. Technically, biracial or multiracial is a better choice of words. I was gonna ask you why you “hate” people like me but I decided I really don’t give a fucc.

**cc5k** · 05-19-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sensitiveguy

I was gonna ask you why you “hate” people like me but I decided I really don’t give a fucc.

Same reason he hates gays. Because it's entertaining to hate people for something they have no control over. It's an easy-out for targeting a group of people that make him insecure about something. What, exactly, about multi-racial people makes him insecure? I don't know.

But like I said, there's an obvious answer for why he might hate gays.

**KHARMA** · 05-19-2008, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sensitiveguy

I guess I missed this comment. Huggy, in an effort to be the polite guy that I am let me just say that the term “mutt” is offensive to me and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t use it. Technically, biracial or multiracial is a better choice of words. I was gonna ask you why you “hate” people like me but I decided I really don’t give a fucc.

Dont waste your time SG, it hates anything that intimidates it....better to be a product of biracial parents than an obvious product of inbreeding.....