schwarzenegger_leno.jpg

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8. Well played, Judges. Pop champagne.

Obviously, the law is a complicated thing, and I’m willing to believe that the justices were simply ruling as they felt they were bound to do as determined by the guidelines of the legal code they were sworn to uphold, rather than allowing (what may very well be) their personal belief to influence their ability to perform their duty. Fair enough. Justice! But you know what is not a complicated thing? EQUALITY. We’ve been through this before, but I’m pretty sure that the way it works is everyone gets the same rights, the end. Did you want to debate it more? Well you can’t because there is no more.

Last night, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and briefly discussed the decision, and even he seems to know what is what:

Yikes. That is a bad day for bigots. When even Arnold Schwarzenegger admits that your position is untenable, you should probably hang up your HATE TOWEL and go home. It’s done. You won’t be back (get it?). You are a tumor (get it?). Jingle all the way.

Comments (55)
  1. Arnold knows same sex couples have been getting a Raw Deal and should be allowed to get married and adopt Twins if they want to.

  2. Just to step away from the jokes for a minute, yesterday’s ruling actually bodes well for gay marriage. By creating two tiers–they held that same-sex marriages performed before the passing of Prop 8 stand–they’ve allowed for the real substantive case to come: that the state allowed some people to get married but not others. That’s a clear violation of equal protection. In yesterday’s case, there was no legal ground for the judges to stand on for overturning Prop 8, not by California law or by federal law.

    I hope you will all have Total Recall that I made this point when the court later rules that Prop 8 is nothing but True Lies.

    • Paul  |   Posted on May 29th, 2009 +1

      Sorry to turn this into Lawgum, but I’m not sure if this argument works – normally laws only apply prospectively. Unless you explicitly make a law retroactive (i.e., program it to go back in time to terminate gay marriages that already exist), it won’t affect legal relationships created in the past. In this sense, laws always discriminate between past and future legal relationships.

      The whole plot of Red Heat turns on this point, I think. Jim Belushi makes a big speech about it.

  3. get on Arnie!

  4. I just can’t even handle hearing about this anymore. I just went on a youtube-chain of prop 8 videos, and can’t handle the pure stupidity of anti-prop 8 people. It’s so painful.
    And then I just think about how I’ll never have to deal with that, since Canada understands that minority rights should not be put to a public vote.

  5. Chris Davis  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 +17

    Wait, does this mean the storm isn’t coming anymore?

  6. oh.  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 -21

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

  7. oh.  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 -27

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

  8. Why does the government even have its hand in a religious institution. Oh yeah because it’s the same government that makes it illegal to not wear a seat belt.

    It should be civil unions for everyone instead of marriage in the eyes of the law. Let the churches handle the religious stuff.

  9. “Come with me if you want to…. get married to the person of your choice”
    -Terminator 2

  10. yep  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 -27

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

    • something tells me you’re not “just wondering.” are you also wondering whether being gay is a choice? something tells me you’ve already made your mind up about that one, too.

      • yep  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 -30

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

        • devin  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 +10

          wow, you’re an idiot!

        • Hello semantics, how are you? Still being irrelevant to the point at hand? I see! How marvelous!

        • I wish you could “choose” to not be so fucking stupid.

          • yep  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 -23

            Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

          • You’re right. It’s not semantics. But it’s also seussical non-sensical.
            What’s at issue is not anyone’s right to marry a person of a specific gender. (I would argue that’s not even a right. It’s a societal choice/custom/more.) What’s at issue is the whether or not there should be an extension of the institution to incorporate all consenting adults, to provide a societally sanctioned, legally recognized, and financially beneficial equivalent of marriage to those who are disenfranchised by the current bias against the homosexual – a bias that many here believe to be unjustifiable given the seeming lack of morally relevant difference between people of different sexual orientations.

        • Okay, but then, a WOMAN does not have the same rights as a gay man. And a man does not have the same rights as a gay woman. Oops!

          • yep  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 -6

            Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

          • You have a point in a way, and it follows logic. So congratulations. At the same time, it really doesn’t matter to argue word choice. Gays should be able to marry. Good we agree. Now stop arguing to argue.

          • Speaking of effective arguments, isn’t the premise that all people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex an unwarranted assumption? Then you come to the conclusion, another unwarranted assumption, that no one has the right to marry a person of the same sex? There is a lot of unjustified statements flowing around here, but I guess we can provide them in a certain context. If we assume that eveyrone has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex (whether it be from tradition, law, culture, etc.), then this does not, in any sense, lead to the conclusion that no one has the right to marry a member of the same sex (if you are using the premise that a person ahs the right to marry a member of the opposite sex as evidence for said conclusion). If anything, based on formal logic, the only sensible thing you can conclude from your first premise is that “If you do not have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, then you are not a person). Moving on. You state that it is no one’s right to marry a member of the same sex, and based on this conclusion, we can assume that you have an unspoken assumption that if the law dictates it to be so, then it must be true. This is the whole point at issue. We’re trying to figure out whether or not the law is justified in restricting rights to a certain group of people. So when someone says, “it is my right”, one can justifiably do so in both the context of formal logic and in processes of the law.

          • shampow  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 +9

            The point is that straight people have the right to marry the person they love while gay people do not.

  11. We’re the obvious ‘I’ll be back’ just too easy, so you felt the need to leave that be?

    I understand….but c’mon.

  12. I actually think its good the court upheld the decision: hear me out.

    Its not like this shit was some law passed by the Senate without the public’s say-so. The public voted to ban gay marriage. So instead of trying to get this law overturned immediately, we need to work on changing people’s perceptions of gay marriage. If the law is overturned, and a majority of people still oppose it, its simply going to further the ideological divide. But if we can help those people see that gay marriage is nothing to be afraid of, they can come together in the next election and vote to overturn it.

    • xochitl  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 +10

      I take your point on the hearts and minds issue. But there IS a problem in saying that everyone has to agree, or that there even has to be a consensus on, the basic rights given to citizens under the law. You don’t have to look too deep in U.S. history to find times when the equal rights of women and people of color were supported by a minority of citizens, and it was no less a violation of the 14th Amendment (and some others) then than it is now. As for hearts and minds, history has also shown that an end to structural discrimination can be instrumental in eroding prejudices. The integration of the armed forces and public school system brought people together who had been kept apart, and so provided the opportunity for hearts and minds to change. Finally, if a country is free then everyone does not have to agree, they do not have to be happy about gay marriage or other issues surrounding equality, they are entitled to heartfelt opposition, but not to oppression.

    • I’m all for people coming together and accepting it but at the same time the purpose of the courts is to uphold the rights of the few not to uphold the votes of the many.

      • Hell yeah! Checks and balances bitchezzz!

        …or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

      • And in this case, the votes of the ‘many’ was 52% more.

        And the prop 8 propaganda was phrased with a double negative which made on-the-fencers or what-do-I-care voters confused, obvz.

        And the Yes on 8 people made horrendous ads (A Storm is Coming or whatever, seen here on this site. You saw how stupid it was) and attacks and signs like ‘they’ll teach my kids gay marriage in school!’

        In the good news, this, by Arnie, and that the No on 8 people like myself are seeing a 13% mind-change rate which would be more than enough to get this voted into law hopefully in 2010. The end. Thank you. Keyboard cat, play me out.

        • Oops. 52%, is what I meant. 52% total. What? I’m still hungover from the protest march here Tues that just haaappened to go past nearly every (gay, obvs) bar in town.

  13. connor  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 +1

    Remember when i told you that you couldn’t marry someone of the same sex? I lied

  14. susanne  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 -37

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

    • njoy  |   Posted on May 27th, 2009 +15

      Go find another website to be an asshole at.

      • susanne   |   Posted on Jun 2nd, 2009 -1

        i may be an asshole, but i don’t finish my sentences with prepositions you stupid tube top.

        • njoy  |   Posted on Jun 2nd, 2009 +1

          I am not the one coming to this website to get help understanding the complexities of piano cat. I actually come here most of the time because there is smart humor written by people whose ideals are closely aligned with mine. Obviously you need to go check out floppingaces.net or whatever retarded website you homophobic and probably racist assholes are reading these days. BARF.

  15. sigh, all these gay marriage posts always have the same outcome. a bunch of people agree with Gabe and Lindsey (including me) then a couple people disagree and it just turns into a bunch of name-calling. pretty soon this post will have 70 comments and everyone will swear at each other. can we just all agree that this is a hot button issue right now, that it won’t be in five years because Prop 8 will be overturned by the voters so there is no reason for everyone to be so mean.

  16. OMG Gabe you just used my favorite movie quote ever. I say it about once a day, and here’s today’s:

    IT’S NOT ? A TUMAH!

  17. juandos  |   Posted on May 28th, 2009 -8

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

  18. rstetradio  |   Posted on May 29th, 2009 +3

    I’d keep reading but I have to go save yep’s horse. Who’s with me?

  19. As a gay man and a machine from the future, I find this to be an enthralling discussion.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.