Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Ten states call for delay of Californian gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert, ex-pat Brit 31 May 2008, 1:17pm

    Just another typical conservative (republican)stalling tactic to get the anti same-sex marriage initiative on the ballot and even if they succeed, they will fail. Not going to happen, these christo-fascists are losing steam and they know it, hence the desperation.

  2. Just another bump in the road but the disappointing thing about this is that New Hampshire Civil Unions have been legal since January ’08. When the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage in 2003 the towns & cities were given a few months until May 17, 2004 when gay marriage would go into effect. Of course Romney & his cronies tried everything to stop it but failed. Even after gay marriages were performed they tried to get an amendment on to the ballot until June 14th, 2007 when it was finally defeated in the State House. For those who are still uncomfortable with this check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com

  3. You know…they can really and truly **** my ****! I’m from New York City. Our governor immediately ordered all state agencies to honor all Gay marriage lincenses issued in any jurisdiction where Gay marriage is legal.

    They should do the same. As soon as they finish ******** my ****!

  4. Charlotte 1 Jun 2008, 8:11pm

    Now they have nine… :) New Hampshire which has civil unions has withdrawn from this action filed on California. Their law already
    covers this issue. I’m sure they had very angry LGBT residents when they heard they were part of this action…..

  5. Paul Mitchell 2 Jun 2008, 10:27am

    I fully support all marriages (including monogamy, polygamy and both opposite-sex and even same-sex marriages). If I myself was incharge, I will make sure all of these listed above became legal.

  6. Robert, ex-pat Brit 2 Jun 2008, 10:52am

    Charlotte, my gut feeling is, even though it seems insurmountable, I think the haters’ initiative will lose steam as November approaches. Even if it were to pass the legislature, there will be thousands of gay married couples to contend with and I wouldn’t want to be any politician having to deal with that dilemma. Obama, Clinton or McCain will have to confront it head on whether they like it or not. It will also take the wind out of the sails of their civil union agenda.

  7. Bill Perdue, RainbowRED 3 Jun 2008, 12:40am

    Actually, this was not the act of ten, now nine, sovereign states. There were no debates and no votes taken. It was the bullying act of a clot of diehard Republican Attorneys General, playing a endgame stalling tactic.

    These Republicans, like their Tory counterparts and most Democratic Party officials are resentfully and mulishly opposed to same sex marriage equality. The Republicans, like the English and Canadian Tories and Howard’s Australian “liberals” and other hard right bigot groups are in for a surprise.

    The appeal of bigotry is on the wane in the United States and elsewhere because the voting population is getting younger and more radical. The California Supreme Court, like all courts, is politically sensitive, and very much so. They showed their understanding of a changing electorate by their decision legalizing same sex marriage. That court is composed of seven justices, six Republicans and one Democrat, not exactly the stuff that revolutions are made from.

  8. New Yorker 4 Jun 2008, 8:23am

    Bill, your comment “The appeal of bigotry is on the wane in the United States and elsewhere because the voting population is getting younger and more radical” has no supporting evidence, and is nonsense. You should refrain from making such sweeping political statements when you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

    In actual fact, and rather unfortunately, examination of data from the General Social Survey (GSS), supplemented by the results of Gallup polls, indicated that conservatism is on the rise in the United States, being fuelled by fear over terrorist and a perceived threat to their way life.

    It sounds to me like you, Bill, are pushing your own brand of politics here (which I assume is communism from your name) and scientific studies that don’t support your view. As a gay man, I am not in agreement that conservatives are right, but I am not blinded by my own foolish personal politics in that I cannot see the reality of how our country is degenerating back into the 1920’s. If we are armed with facts, we can fight these conservatives, not make stupid unfounded statements like yours, Bill.

    I doubt the Europeans who read this site care much for your policies anyway, their continent has already suffered from the pollution of corrupt and failed communism. I would suggest you back up your wide statements with controlled data, at least that way people on this site can provide a balanced argument based in fact, not the inane rantings of one political dogma.

  9. Bill Perdue, RainbowRED 4 Jun 2008, 9:28pm

    New Yorker has got to be Rip van Winkle. What else could begin to explain his vast unfamiliarity with American politics? Or his hallucination that American voters aren’t fed up with our version of the Tory/BNP types who dominate the right wing of the Republican Party. It’s a Republican/Tory delusion to imagine that the US isn’t making a sharp left turn. But if looking at the world through brown colored glasses is what gets these rightwing nut jobs through the day then by all means dream on.

    For those more centered on reality the news reported yesterday that “7 in 10 Americans say the government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can marry the people they choose. As same-sex couples line up to get marriage licenses in California on June 17, the USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 63% of adults say same-sex marriage is “strictly a private decision” between two people. That the government has the right “to prohibit or allow” such marriages was stated by 33%, and 4% had no opinion.”
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-03-gay-marriage-poll_N.htm

    The California Field poll said “51 per cent in favor of gay marriage with 42 per cent opposed. “ The Los Angeles Times said today that the anti same sex marriage forces are in for a surprise “Marriage amendment may backfire on GOP California Republicans shouldn’t be so sure they have a winning issue on the November ballot.
    Two things already can be said about the pro- posed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that on Tuesday qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot. One is that the coming campaign is sure to be nasty and divisive; the other is that recent history suggests that such electoral struggles over fundamental rights are likely to have unintended consequences.
    Any time one group of Californians uses the ballot box as a tool to have another group declared less or different than everyone else — and, therefore, entitled to fewer rights — people take it personally and things get rough.”

    The GLBT movement in California is huge, diverse and battle hardened and they have the support of the majority because as the field poll shows, the electorate is getting younger and more radical. To claim otherwise is simply delusional, but that what right wing nuts like Tories and Republicans do best.

    http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/970055.html

    Poor old Rip must have slept through that part. Oh well, at least he’s got his American spelling down pat and that’s a welcome change. However, he’ll have to work a bit on his idiomatic American English. It’s about as clenched and stilted as a Tory getting screwed.

  10. Kenneth Pearse 5 Jun 2008, 8:17am

    “New Yorker has got to be Rip van Winkle”

    What’s wrong Bill, you can;’t make a civilised argument against New Yorker’s rather clear points without resorting to petty name calling? Is your argument *that* weak?

    You shoudl be ashamed of yourself, there is no place in the fight for equality for petty queens like you.

  11. Kenneth, darling, don’t waste your time. This chap Perdue, or who ever he is, has appeared many times here before slandering those who do not agree with his particularly distasteful politics. He wont listen to you, nor will he respond kindly. Manners, and other such civilised pleasantries, seem to be beyond the insipid blustering of this supposedly gay person.

    One thing does confuse me though: apparently he’s accusing the New Yorker chap of not being American? How bizarre. Does he think everyone should be American? Or is it that he’s the only one? Oh, well, who cares… clearly Bill doesn’t either, Kenneth my dear, given the content of his monthly rantings. Period problems, bless him.

  12. New Yorker 5 Jun 2008, 8:35am

    I wasn’t going to respond to that nonsense, but I decided I will, if only to say this:

    Bill, your arguments are ridiculous. If you are incapable of rationalized argument, then don’t.

    Your attempts to insult me by name calling, especially the clouded nonsensical references to me being some kind of “conservative”, are quite frankly pathetic. Its more demeaning to you than to me, I assure you.

    Oh, and if my language appears less vernacular than the common man in this country, then its because I am, obviously unlike you, an educated person. My apologies for not lowering my command of English to your level. Next time I will use short stunted words and try to present my argument as if I were lecturing a five year old with learning difficulties.

    And do have a nice day swilling a Coors on the back porch of your trailer.

  13. William - Dublin 5 Jun 2008, 9:10am

    New Yorker, you’re wasting your time. Bill is well known for this kind of thing on this site. He’s done his crap to many, many others. You might be interested there is some anecdotal evidence he regularly attacks gay activists in the US who don’t agree with communism and his vision of some insane revolution by the proletarians by calling them “paedophiles”.

    He’s a basket case, right to the core. And as Derek quite rightly pointed out, one with no manners.

    I think I have figured out the simplistic formulae to Bill’s rants:-

    1. Call you a names.
    2. Make a sweeping political statement in the style of Leonid Brezhnev.
    3. Call you a conservative (This one is quite popular)
    4. Insist you are not who you say you are. e.g. by saying you are someone else, or not of the nationality you claim to be (also a popular one in Bill’s limited arsenal)
    5. Call you another name, normally by means of an obscure reference or archaic term.
    6. Say your naive or blind.
    7. Accuse you of being in league with the BNP/Tory/Republican Party or some other conspiratorial conservative party, with a possible reference to you not supporting gay equality, or simply not being gay.

    Sound familiar? Yep, its another day in the noon day sun with Billy the lunatic.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all