Just speaking for myself, I think it's a great day for all people -- straight or gay.

Indeed! No one is equal until everyone is. It is too bad -- and this is an understatement -- that so many people are dedicated to thwarting the notion of true justice and equality for all.

i am a member of a right wing conservative email chat group as i just want to be kept up on what is kosher with the right wingers.

today they have been posting about hopes that god will destroy the entire state for allowing gay marriages. my very favorite though was...and i quote

"God should come down and whip some ass and put a stop to this sin".

I never knew that god was an ass kicker.

jack e. jett

I never knew that god was an ass kicker.

Try reading the Old Testament some time. Floods, plagues, etc...

Makes atheism look damned good, that sentiment...

It's amazing how the more religious one gets, the more violent one gets. That applies to all faiths.

Unfortunately, Natalie, there aren't 49 states to go, unless you are referring to the ability to undo Amendments that have already been passed. Currently there are 4.

As of March:
States with Amendment Introduced: 24
States with Amendment Expected: 2
States Where Amendment Died or Defeated: 11
States With Amendment Still Pending: 9
States where Amendment Passed: 4
States With Citizen-Initiated
Constitutional Amendments Pending: 2

source (pdf file)

Congrats to all gay, umm, Massachusettians(?) on one of the best days ever for Lady Liberty.

BCB, I wasn't even getting into the unfortunate reality of amendments. I was referring only to the fact that same-sex couples are allowed to marry legally in only one of the 50 states. Which is true. Your point is taken, however.

My advice to queer and/or justice-loving people in those horrible four states or in any state where anti-GLBT constitutional amendments are passed: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! I suggest moving to Massachusetts or out of the US entirely.

Unfortunately, Natalie, Mass. legislators voted to ammend our state constitution to make marriage between a man and a woman and to create "civil unions" for gays. It will go before the voters in 2006.

If it passes, I think that the people married between today and the day the ammendment becomes valid will suddenly have their marriages voided.

Fucked up.

Okay, so why did I put the double-m in amend and amendment?

Not having coffeed-up, no telling what I typed during the last half hour. That was almost 'latte half hour.'

I am still thinking through the legal implications, vis-a-vis statutes and the Equal Protection Clauses of state constitutions, Boom and bhw. I think the EP Clause will prevail in Oregon, which has a liberal tradition of interpreting it. I am not so sure about Massachusetts. And, underlying it all is the fact that the federal constitution does not recognize gays as specially situated. Though not technically relevant, it is like the elephant in the room being ignored.

Still, it is a good day for the people effected by the current flux. It will be interesting to see if Boston replaces Portland as gay marriage Mecca.

Speaking of equal rights...

I now demand that polygamous couples be declared allowed to have group marriages.

Those who oppose this are nothing more than close-minded bigots who want to take deserved rights away from their fellow citizens.

If a man and two women fall in love, is not that love just as pure, indeed more so, than the love between only two people? Or how about two women and a man? Or two guys and two gals? Or 14 dudes and 23 chicks?

If you disagree with me, you're a heartless bigot who demands that only an arbitrarily number of individuals deserve to have thier love officially recognized.

Shame on you.

RJ, I don't disagree with you. Consenting adults should be free to do just that.

Go ahead and step on the slippery slope. It sounds like a fun ride.

RJ, you already know I agree with you. People should be able to define their families however they want. But an interesting question comes up.

What if 5 people are married to each other, and someone wants a divorce from only 3? Would it be possible then for person A and person B to be married to person C but NOT married to each other as well? Could it happen? Oh, wait, I think that's a Fox reality show.

The point is, RJ, that people and the church can define marriage however they want. But the government cannot reward or punish families based on families it likes and doesn't like. The perfect solution is to get the government out of the marriage business completely.

Great, I now have two supporters of polygamy on this site.

And you wonder why people cautioned about the slippery-slope?

I just don't see what is so special, societally speaking, about a one-man-one-woman definition of marriage [even though I've been happily in one myself for a long time].

Why does society and our government care what a family looks like? Why are they in the business of "promoting" marriage through tax breaks and other laws that give special privileges?

Makes no sense to me.

I don't think anyone should be given a "tax break." Tax everyone equally. Flat Tax or National Sales Tax, whatever.

But, I'm sure I'm in the minority here...

bhw... i had forgotten about that development in mass. (ninety-hour workweeks will do that to ya.) amend my advice: flee the united states! because, yes, my friend, this nation is fucked up. for proof, read mr. elliott's comments. (no, i don't support polygamy, but neither do i think the gummint should have any say in how people conduct their personal relationships. and i agree about taxation -- no tax breaks for married couples! but if the hets get 'em, then it's only fair that the queers do too.)