Gay Marriage Victory In California!

californiapostcard-1.jpg

Boy, oh boy! Things are probably hectic in California right now, where the Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Proposition 22, a ban on gay marriage, is unconstitutional.

The bad news is that the court also acknowledged that San Francisco “acted unlawfully by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the absence a judicial determination that CA statutes limited marriage to union between a man and a woman are unconstitutional.” The 2004 marriages would thus are still be nullified, but who cares? Now they can have another wedding!

[Note: a commenter correctly pointed out that those 2004 marriages have already been wiped clean. Thanks, CNN. You jerks.]

Here’s a choice bit of the 172 page ruling: “In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #california #gay #marriage stories and more

81 Comments

  • CHURCHILL-Y

    WooHoo!!!!

  • CHURCHILL-Y

    Thank you Golden State!
    And thank you to all fair minded people who fought
    for this to become a reality.

  • ASharkInCali

    Proud to be a Californian!!!

  • CitizenGeek

    Awesome! It’s a great day for equality!

  • Nate

    So when will we actually be able to get married?

  • Ricardo

    First California, next, the whole country!

    Congrats to the men and women that fought through this, they give us all something to be proud of!!

  • beefy

    HELL YEAAAAHHHH!

  • M Shane

    That is a great precident!

  • ILOVEZ

    GOOD! I do wanna get married in the future!:)

  • Kid A

    This is fantastic, but let me make a point with this as an example.

    If this is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, what do you think will happen? What kind of judges will uphold this?

    In other words, what kind of judges would be appointed by McCain? By Obama?

    Any Hillary supporters planning on defecting to McCain may want to check their enthusiasm.

  • Gregoire

    Thank you, Kid A! I hope this news reinforces that very real priority and the very real FEAR of the kinds of judges McCain would appoint.

  • underbear1

    ‘way down in L.A.
    every day
    they’re dancin’ in the street”

  • Kevin @ BGFH

    Kid A, I’m not sure this actually can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The issue is strictly a state constitutionally issue and doesn’t involve federal issues, so there’s no jurisdiction in federal courts. Same with the Massachusetts case.

    However, a related federal issue could someday make it to the US Supreme Court: whether states are required to recognize gay marriages from other states (the Defense of Marriage Act says they don’t). And you are absolutely right, federal court appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, should be of great importance to voters. McCain’s appointees will be horrible.

    I voted for Hillary and I would vote for her again tomorrow if my state re-held its primary. But I will absolutely and enthusiastically vote for Obama in November.

  • underbear1

    ALL queer couples wanting to be married from any state without a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriages….RUN!!!! to CA get hitched and sue your home state.
    we’ll be at the Supreme Court in 2009

  • underbear1

    saddest guy in AMERIKA = Mittler Romney

    he used his filthy racist 1913 law to ban inter-racial marriges which delayed gay marriage for 5 years, CA just opened the path “straight” to the supreme court…(so to speak)

  • j.

    This rocks. California passed a gay marriage bill through the house and senate and was vetoed by arnold, then the stupid referendum.

    This just shows that discrimination by the majority does not make that discrimination right. Way to go Cali.

    Kick it over to http://www.grrlplanet.com for a laugh.

  • Adrienne

    This is wonderful! I am a little confussed though, does it mean gays can get married now? Or is it just a ban…when can i get married!?!?

  • underbear1

    Wedding planners, caterers, tuxedo rental managers, wedding dress designers, photographers, florists, and limo company owners in CA, now you can finally use your talents for your OWN weddings.

    It’ll be a BOOM market, I can’t wait to see the photos of the BEST queer weddings of the season.

  • abracadaver

    Its noteworthy to mention that, among legal scholars and professionals, the California Supreme Court is the most respected state Supreme Court in the nation. It is also overwhelmingly made up of Republican appointees. Any arguments of “activist” judges (one of the most insulting terms I’ve ever heard) hijacking our nation will finally ring as hollow as that derogatory label is! Don’t forget to add that bit of info when countering the claims of “activist judges” that all of us will undoubtedly hear from the other side.

  • Brian

    The “bad news” that you cite, that the court ruled that the marriages allowed in San Francisco in 2004 were unlawful, was actually ruled years ago; it’s not new. Today’s opinion referenced that decision for contrast: the 2004 decision (Lockyer) was decided with no consideration of the constitutionality of the ban on gay marriage (b/c it was not within the scope of the arguments before the court), but specifically left the door open for such a constitutional issue to be visited in the future. It was, and now it’s been decided.

  • el polacko

    “the state Supreme Court… is also overwhelmingly made up of Republican appointees”
    a striknig example of why it is not necessarily a reason to fear another republican president. mccain is quite moderate which is why his right-wing can’t stand him. it won’t be as is romney or huckabee were making appointments… but enough of that… today i am just proud to be a californian !! yippeee !!

  • CHURCHILL-Y

    Adrienne, If im not mistaken and I invite any corrections, the supreme court has reversed the court of appeal ruling and therefor sent back to them to take action in accordance with the supreme court ruling.

    Kid A I refer you to part of No 13 comment.

  • John

    I plan to enjoy the moment. After all, the liberty and justice for all thing is often ignored. Right now, all I have to say is “Oh Happy Day!”

  • Bill Perdue

    Excellent news.

    The courts and legislators are erratic and undependable at best but they’re also very political and when they’re faced with a mass movement that won’t take no for an answer they occasionally rule to placate the movement.

  • Alec

    It isn’t over yet, folks. There will probably be an initiative in November. On the other hand, if anyone was contemplating a domestic partnership, get married before November! They won’t be able to take it away that easily.

    Great day to be a Californian, though. I am wondering what the dinner conversation will be tonight, though.

    BTW, Kid A, no chance in hell of this being appealed to the Supremes. It was based on the state constitution.

  • Oh.No...

    My girlfriend and I have been talking about moving to California for a long time now … this seems as good a time as any.

    Congratulations, Californians. You should be proud.

  • Tom

    Personally I am ecstatic. My lover is foreign-born and I would love to get married so he can legally migrate here.

    On the other hand, politically, I am fearful of the backlash that is surly to follow. Will this now be the rallying cry from the social conservatives to vigorously support McCain? I don’t know.

    But I hope we Democrats work our asses off in the fall to get whoever is our nominee elected. If McCain wins, there may be a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage headed our way.

    But for the moment, lets relish the moment and celebrate this fantastic victory.

  • underbear1

    no2 & no22 ChurchLady

    isn’t FAMILY, as he/she demonstrated on the Edward’s thread.

    just posting a scorecard, so others know who they are dealing with.

  • hells kitchen guy

    Too bad the initiative in November. If they had a few years and saw the institution of marriage didn’t go under as in Mass., voters would vote it down. I think it will pass this november.

  • parisinla

    Hes a butterface.

    — oh wait this isnt morning goods.

  • Lena Dahlstrom

    Congrats for my gay and lesbians friends here in California! Let’s savor this day.

    It’s NOT appealable to the U.S. Supreme Court, since it strictly involves California law. Also, Ah-nold announced his support for the decision and reiterated his opposition to a proposition (expected to be on the ballot this fall) that would amendment to the constitution to ban same-sex marriage and would overturn the ruling.

    If you’re worried about a back-lash (and unfortunately with the ballot proposition you should’ve been regardless of today’s decision) be prepared to put your time and money to fighting back — both in California and elsewhere.

    FWIW, the LGBT communities put aside their differences and united back in 1978 to successfully defeat Prop 6, aka the infamous Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.

  • jacques Rosas

    OBAMA: Needs to support gay marriage to get my vote. Put the pressure on please. No more waiting.

  • jacques

    No support for GAY MARRIAGE, cant have my vote. Npo more waiting.

  • Charley

    Woo Hoo.. At last. We are now ……full citizens in California. USA next.

  • Jason

    Tom, you can’t immigrate with a same-sex marriage license bc of DOMA. My Australian hubby and I got married in Mass. last spring, but I can’t sponsor him for immigration purposes, bc the Federal Gov’t handles immigration not states. And DOMA prevents the Feds from recognizing lawful same-sex marriages.

  • George

    From Kevin Drum: “Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly with 63% of the vote. Has 13% of the state decided to relax since then and allow gay couples to live in peace? We’re about to find out.”

    The younger you get, the more pro-gay marriage you are. It’s a fact. So not to be morbid but just think about how many anti-gay marriage people have died in the 8 years since this passed and how many pro-gay marriage people turned 18.

    And also, Obama increases youth turnout so I think it’ll be fine even if the amendment makes it on the ballot. I’ll be donating money to whatever groups are working to fight it though, just to be safe!

  • underbear1

    How can Marriage Equality opponents get any traction with their lies?
    We have 5 years of PROOF that none of their lies came true in MA. No hetero marriages were destroyed, no school systems went to Hell, no anything happened.
    If you asked a straight couple in MA if the gay couple down the street were married, or just living together, they wouldn’t know, and wouldn’t care.

  • Rock

    I don’t have to go to California to get married….Massachusetts is right next door.

  • George

    Any one know the best charities to donate to that will help educate and fight the ballot initiative for November?

  • dhsjimmy

    Thanks be to those of you who contributed to, fought for and accomplished this monumental task.
    Bless the Supreme Court for their courage and wisdom.
    Happy tears are flowing, not tears of rage as in the past.

  • AgainstIt

    I know that you are all proud of your “victory”, but why are you so happy about this? In the end you are still homosexuals. Putting the title of marriage to your unions is a slap in the face to the church.

  • abracadaver

    With all the slapping (not to mention the burning, hanging, beheading, drawn-and-quartering, ad nauseum) the church has done since its inception, I say what comes around goes around.

  • Rock

    Has James “Focus on the Family” dropped dead yet?

    This will kill him for sure!

  • Rock

    Woops, James Dobson.

  • underbear1

    I can’t wait for papa Ratzinger’s respose, I bet he sh*t all down his ermine cape today.
    He’s lost Boston, now CA, if he losses PA and NY he is really of no consequence in America.

  • underbear1

    AgainstIt

    in the end you are just a hetero, which isn’t normal…..it’s just COMMON.

  • Bill Perdue

    “And DOMA prevents the Feds from recognizing lawful same-sex marriages.” Another gift from Dixiecrat Bill Clinton and the vast majority of Democrats (sic) in Congress.

    AgainstIt – We don’t want to just slap the church in the face; we’ll end up grinding its face in the dirt by supporting laws to tax Jesus Christ Inc. like all the other entertainment conglomerates.

    A Republican is a baboon in a people suit with a totalitarian christianite attached at the hip. A Democrat is a Republican in drag.

  • underbear1

    A Democrat is a Republican in drag.

    pssst…. if you look closely at Ann Coulter’s Adam’s apple I wouldn’t be throwing around that drag slur.
    a Democrat when he has a same sex act, BOTH parties are adult, awake, and consensual….unlike a certain Republican ex-congressman Foley or predatory Republican youth leader Glenn Murphy who sucked off a sleeping republican boy.

  • Bill J

    As far as a constitutional amendment goes, I say bring it on! It will get so roundly defeated in California that the Focus on the Family goons won’t dare try it again. Hooray!!

  • Wayne

    Number 42, marriage existed long before the church.

    Marriage is a civil function and does not belong to the church.

    And gay people like Jesus and Paul created the church. :)

  • reversion

    This is great news. People who want to marry get to marry.

    But I just think the state should have no legal power over marriage. That way, we wouldn’t have had to go through with this to begin with.

    I don’t understand why marriage is so special though. The unmarried and partnered, or simply single, should have the same rights as those married.

  • michael

    Hallelujah! I can hear the angels singing! On behalf of your gay brothers & sisters and other enlightened individuals in Vancouver
    B.C. I congratulate you and pray this blessing spreads to all in the United States! Bless all of you!

  • Bill Perdue

    Kid A is letting his partisan support for the Democrats, who are only cosmetically different from the Republicans, interfere with reason. Unlike street prostitutes, the bought and paid for leaders of the two parties get to appoint their own judges. His idea that judges are only good if they’re appointed by Democrats is delusional.

    The California same sex marriage decision was decided by a majority ruling of three Republicans and the lone Democrat on the court. Chief Justice George, a Republican, was first appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1972. The first judicial appointment of Justice Moreno, the only Democrat, was by Gov. George Deukmejian, a rightist. Justice Kennard, a Republican, was also appointed by Deukmejian. Justice Werdegar is a Republican.

    Bill Clinton, the man behind DOMA and DADT appointed Karen Nelson Moore to the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995. She consistently votes for the rights of christianists to oppress GLBT folk. Senate Democrats led by Feinstein of California worked with Republicans to approve gaybashing Bush nominees for the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and as US Attorney General.

    Most politicians are very wealthy and the rest are in politics to get that way. That’s the bottom line in US politics and the rest is snake oil, a substance Kid A appears to abuse all too often. The truth is that politicians appoint judges who’ll protect wealth and privilege, and those people don’t take kindly to laws or cases that award large claims against bigots, christianist cults and other bigots.

    Congressional Democrats and Republicans are just as bad. Led by Barney Frank, they gutted ENDA and dropped the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill to prevent to these claims from ever getting to a jury.

    The key to gaining our equality is not to rely on capricious and vacillating political judges or legislators but on ourselves and our ability to fight through to the end, whatever the means and no matter the consequences, to get our share of what the world offers.

  • RPCV

    Sorry supporters of gay marriage, but, in my view, it’s time for Congress to speak on this matter and pass a constitutional amendment one way or the other. With states going here and there on the issue, it’s just going to get more and more complicated for anyone to understand what’s the law in each of the 50 states.

    And, in acting, Congress should uphold the sanctity of male-female marriage with civil unions permissible for gays. The country is not ready for gay marriage, and quite frankly, I don’t think the gay community as a whole is sufficiently mature to treat the privilege responsibly. I can just see all the twinks on meth running to a judge just to get hitched as a joke. Bottom line: The gay community as a whole is flaky, wierd, and undeserving of special rights.

  • underbear1

    it’s time for Congress to speak on this matter

    what part of “liberty and justice for ALL” didn’t you get?

    what part of “all men are created EQUAL” went over your head?

    our government has spoken on this issue.

  • underbear1

    “I can just see all the twinks on meth running to a judge just to get hitched as a joke. Bottom line: The gay community as a whole is flaky, wierd, and undeserving of special rights.”
    Britney Spears….nuff said

    “Special Rights” implies straight couples don’t, and haven’t had this right since the begining of this nation….BITE ME!

  • underbear1

    Minority Rights are ALWAYS won through the courts, thats how the founders invisioned our courts. One man/woman has the Right to petition their government, and appointed judges (free from politics) fairly decide the case.

  • CHURCHILL-Y

    RPCV the only one whos “weird” is you.
    If you hold such repulsive views why are you here?

  • underbear1

    Churchlady

    “If you hold such repulsive views why are you here?”

    “THESE PEOPLE”

    physician heal thyself

  • Kid A

    Bill Perdue:

    I don’t abuse snake oil, or anything for that matter. I am not blindly devoted to the Democratic party (by any stretch of the imagination). And I have no delusions that politics is exactly how it is described in high school.

    However, I am confident that McCain represents a less ideal candidate (on the issues, regardless of party) to us than Obama is. Given the fact that it will likely be a choice between McCain and Obama this fall, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that Obama’s influence would be more in line with the beliefs of the progressive community than McCain’s influence. Not to say that Obama is fantastically liberal, or that the Democratic party is even that progressive, but those are the choices we’re working with. It’s that simple and that pragmatic.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you that our rights will best be earned by our work and societal progress, not waiting for politicians to get them for us.

  • CitizenGeek

    This story reported by the LA Times has been dugg (on Digg.com) over 3300 times! :D

  • RPCV

    To Underbear1: If we extend marriage rights to gays then let’s include every special group in the mix, including polygamists and people who commit incest. The state of California spoke on this issue by overwhelmingly rejecting extending the right to marry to gays – now we have some wacky, loony court overturning the voice of the people. Underbear 1, stop drinking the Kool Aid….

  • fredo777

    RPCV, that “slippery slope” logic is just as flawed now as it ever was. Not to mention a tired excuse. I’m sure similar arguments were made when the “majority” of citizens were against interracial marriage, but it was eventually recognized as bullsh*t, too.

    Zip it.

  • RPCV

    Freedo777: Is there a double standard here? You want your rights protected since you apparently support gay marriage. But, you want to restrict my 1st amendment right to freedom of speech? I accept your apology for the “zip it” command.

  • Bill Perdue

    RPCV stupidly says that “now we have some wacky, loony court overturning the voice of the people.”

    WACKY? Six of them are Republicans, one of whom, the Chief Justice, was appointed by Reagan. The other is a Democrat. They’re not wacky all but they are elitist and lazy. Their system waited decades to decide that we’re people. They’ll wait more decades until it dawns on them that immigrant and imported workers are people too.

    LOONEY? Well, maybe. All the Justices are followers of this or that cult and are mainly christianites; mormons, prots, and altar boy rapists. You know the kind I’m talking about; superstitious people capable of believing ten preposterous things before breakfast. People who think the exorcist was a documentary and who are socially retarded until forced to see reason by a mass movement that won’t take no for an answer.

    That movement of course is the GLBT struggle and the polls say that most Californians support us and not baboon bigots like you.

  • RPCV

    Bill Perdue incorrectly asserts “that movement of course is the GLBT struggle and the polls say that most Californians support us and not baboon (sic) bigots like you.” I repeat from my earlier post: “The state of California spoke on this issue by overwhelmingly rejecting extending the right to marry to gays.” Bill Perdue, your assertion just doesn’t float since the referendum failed miserably. The majority of Californians properly want to keep marriage male-female only, and not expand the right to marriage to special groups such as gays, polygamists, and those who perpetrate incest. Not that I’m asserting that gays = polygamists and those who commit incest, but where does society draw the line? One of the earlier posters noted that gay marriage is a 10th amendment right, i.e., equal protection under the law. I don’t believe that the rational people of California want to extend marriage to gays, polygamists, those who commit incest, and all other special groups (which would be required if you properly apply the equal protection clause). Do you, Bill Perdue?

  • fredo777

    RPCV, there was no apology offered for my “zip it” command to accept.

    And, quite frankly, there is no risk of you losing your right to free speech. I’m not representing the government, just an individual who (unapologetically) would rather not hear nonsense like the “slippery slope” argument against gay marriage. Feel “free” to say what you wish, as I’ll feel equally free to tell you I’d rather you put a sock in it. See how that works?

  • John

    You just don’t get it. Free speech only applies to government. Queerty isn’t a government website.

    And even with the government, you can be arrested for a wide variety of speech related crimes that are exempted from the First Amendment (because they fall under the rubric of “compelling state interests”).

    These include inciting a riot, unlawful aseembly / trespassing on public land, as well as disrupting the proceedings of a court or legislative body.

    Active members of the military are subjected to an additional level of scrutiny. They’re not allowed to publically disrespect any high officers of state (President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, Secretary of Defense, Governors, and so forth).

  • RPCV

    Freedo777: Clearly, you’re unable to engage in polite civil discourse without injecting insults. You’re helping me prove my point that gays, by and large, are flaky, weird, and, most importantly, undeserving of special rights such as marriage. Keep talking Freedo777.

  • Bertha Vanation

    I’m hoping that this is true. A legal analyst said that this weeks ruling by the Cal Supreme Court includes language that might make it possible to strike down the proposed constitutional amendment that is expected to appear on the November ballot in California that would make marriage in California a union between a man and a woman.

    The argument goes like this: The California constitution never specifically called marriage a protected right because until now there was no need to specify as such. But in the court’s ruling this week the majority included language that says the constitution as a whole protects the right of Californians to marry. This changes everything. It makes it possible now for the court to strike down as unconstitutional any constitutional amendment that would effectively deny the right to marry of a class of Californians.

    I do hope we hear more about this as the court’s ruling is studied.

  • fredo777

    First of all, RPCV, my name is “fredo777” (with one “e”).

    Secondly, telling you that I find your “slippery slope” argument to be a load of rubbish isn’t a personal insult, it’s just a statement of fact (the fact being that it is, indeed, my opinion).

    Thirdly, you don’t seem to have a valid point for me to respond to with thoughtful replies. “Gays are NOT Weird!” and so forth. I mean, what kind of intelligent debate do you expect after making statements like (paraphrasing): “most gays are weird”.

    Finally, as you don’t have a valid point (gays as weird, flaky, etc.) + I have exhibited none of the above in my comments, I don’t see how I could possibly be aiding you in proving it. And, thanks, I shall keep talking.

  • reversion

    Arguments like these are ultimately trivial.

    If someone wants to “gay marry”, then it really isn’t any of the authoritarian moralizers’ business, especially since the argument against it is unsound.

    I wonder what aliens would think of this whole “marriage” thing if they were watching us now. :/

  • RPCV

    Reversion: Aliens would say “Gosh, why should people be allowed to marry if they can’t procreate?? Marriage is for men and women; civil unions are for others who legally wish to enter into a bond of attachment and commitment. But still, do we include polygamist and incestuous unions into the mix? Geez, I hope not…………

  • reversion

    Wow, you’re presumptuous. For all you know, the aliens could be hermaphroditic (like C. elegans) and thus have no concept of “male” and “female”, and maybe even wonder why the hell heteros are making a big thing of something ultimately so trivial.

    BTW: Islam permits men to have multiple wives. Apparently god lets them. Incest? Not my problem. But besides, Adam and Eve and their children must have had incest to procreate. But I’m an atheist, and what do I know?

    People need to step back and get a little perspective on the situation. ZOMG. A couple of people want to get involved in a “marriage” and live out happy lives, but nope, the whole fucking country chooses to discriminate against individuals based on their desire for dick over vagina (and vice versa). Wow. I’m an evil person because I’m a man who likes dick, and because I’m a man who likes that little (or big) thing called “dick” then I can’t have a relationship with someone with a dick, too. Why? Because (Oh, noes!) the country’s going to blow up!

    Well you know what? Fuck you, your ilk, and your narrow minded obsession on the male-female only binary.

    /tirade

  • RPCV

    Reversion: an atheist??? Oh, that explains your inability/unwillingness to understand why marriage between a man and a woman is to be protected, and civil unions extended to other classes of people as society permits. If you’re truly an atheist, I pity you.

  • reversion

    HAHAHA

    I don’t need the worthless pity and authoritarian moralizing of some presumptuous, pretentious, pathetic, F5-smashing blog troll.

    I have nothing but contempt for you.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to do something constructive: fap to some porn.

    Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along.

  • RPCV

    Gosh, guys, all I wanted was a civil discussion!!

  • fredo777

    RPCV, I’d have preferred a civil discussion as well. But let’s be honest: posting on a blog specifically for gays that most gays are “weird”, “flaky”, + deserve to be treated like second-class citizens (and as immature ones) doesn’t exactly win people over.

    Also, you said that gays are undeserving of special rights. Marriage equality isn’t a special right, but an equal one to every heterosexual citizen. Whether you or I like it, agree with it, or hate it, every human being should be allowed to marry the (consenting, adult) person of their choice in a ceremony that could be secular, quite frankly. Times change, cultures change, + humans are very adaptable creatures.

    I’m not going to touch the polygamy or incest issues, b/c (while I don’t really agree with them), it’s none of my damn business. That’s what many of the so-called moralists should consider: if same-sex marriage is wrong, anti-God, anti-Christian, or whatever, it’s still not our place to judge each other for it. If these opponents devoted half the time they spend on ruining our chances at marriage to bettering their own, the world would be much better off.

  • RPCV

    Fredo777: You’re back!! Welcome!

    Something as unconventional as gay marriage IS a special right, Freddy. And, based on my 25+ years in the gay community, I don’t think that the overwhelming majority of gays are mature enough to make solid decisions as to whether to marry. The gay community needs a lot more time before we, as a community, are ripe for such time-tested and ancient “rights” as marriage.

    BTW, are you, Fredo777, the budding hip hop star from Detroit who’s all over the internet??

  • fredo777

    RPCV:

    Unconventional? Only because there have been people fighting to keep gays in an inferior position. And whether you see it as a special right or not (which it isn’t, considering that gays have just as much right to the benefits of marriage as hetero couples do), it doesn’t really matter. Marriage (even among heterosexuals) has evolved over the years + still is evolving.

    I keep hearing that a marriage should be kept between a man + a woman. I feel that it should be kept between the two adults who choose to commit to each other + that the rest of the world should concern themselves w/ their own relationships.

    Btw, I’m not a hip hop artist, but I do sing.

Comments are closed.