Just read the news online as a got up this morning and have to say,BOOYA BABY! (does happy Dance)

I was reading this, and I thought of something...

When Massachusetts passed it, people were saying, "The legislature, not the courts, should make this decision." Well, I can understand that, I suppose...

Now, people are saying, "The courts, not the legislature, should make this decision!" Um... is this their way of protesting the institution without looking homophobic? Because psst... It's not working.

I could go on, but I'm not registered for POOP.

Which is why I posted it here

Crossroads, I must now join you in your happy dance.

Of course, the Massachusetts legislature is something like 46-2 in liberals-conservatives. So I really doubt they *wouldn't* pass gay marraige if given the option.

But, republicans are the states' rights party, right? I'm sure they'll just sit down and accept that local legislatures have the right to self-govern without interference from the federal level.

Unless, of course....they were just saying they believed in states' rights to service their particular needs at the time. But what are the odds of that?

Me too!

Oh, and Bob? My sarcasm sense is tingling. *chuckle*

Congrats, Crossroads. Who's the lucky groom? Kidding.
Really, it's cool. :) Maybe when people see that this doesn't cause the downfall of civilization, they'll accept it in other parts of the country as well. One can hope, eh? (Let's just hope Arnie doesn't crush this one).

Well... I do have a 4year BF, but seeing as how we are in Az, the law won't really apply to us.
Yeh, well, thats what we thought would happen back in Mass, and, eh, that didn't turn out well... But theres always a first time!

Crossroads, I have only one thing to say:
ROAD TRIP!

What will be interesting is to see the gyrations necessary by the Right to ignore the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution that seems to mandate repricocity in recognizing gay marriage. Especially as this is a state's rights issue.

Unless, of course, the Governator chooses to veto it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00249.html
Ho hum. Save The Greyhounds remarks about the opponents of this seem rather on the nail.

Wow 'Out of respect for will of the people'. If they actually took a vote, I bet over 50% of Californians would support gay marraige...maybe he meant 'Out of respect for the far right gay-haters who vote for me'.

The latest fad seems to be to characterize any government body that does anything you don't like as "runaway". They should put this to a referendum, let's see them anti-gay lobbies call it the "runaway populace".

Only a direct vote of the people can decide things? What part of democracy did he not understand?

Well, in situations where a direct vote of the people might yield results he prefers, only a direct vote of the people can decide things.

Republicans hating gay people is nothing new though. :)

A "direct vote of the people" led to the banning of Gay Marriage five years ago. But a lot has changed in the last five years, and gay marriage has been gaining support at a rapid rates since then.