Margaritas ftw!

Lawrence v. Texas was in 2006. Twenty years, not ten.

Romer v. Evans was a great ruling in the 90's, though.

And a part of that fight includes coming out to family and friends and voting in every single election. Because without those two things the fight is longer and more difficult.

And by 2006 I mean 2003, and 17 years, etc.

You know, Dan never has posted a pic of Terry in a Speedo. Seems only fair, if he wants us to send him pics, that he reciprocate. All that bragging without proof? I'm calling foul.

Oh, and Yay for the 9th circuit court. We can only hope that the Supreme Court loses a single conservative member before the case gets there.

If "Bowers vs. Hardick" is a typo, I think it should be left uncorrected :)

We will eventually win. And Alabamans will eventually be able to legally buy vibrators too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Obscen…

I feel like I'm in a giant, gay locker room, listening to a half-time pep talk.

Dan that would make one hell of a ralllying cry (and t-shirt btw). Good job.

All the more reason for gays everywhere to push for President Obama's re-election. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said she could retire soon, and it wouldn't be before the 2012 election. Hate to think what a Romney appointee could tip to this case.

I <3 you Dan Savage, and I have crystal candy dish with your names on it for when the time comes you and Terry can marry here at home.
Or you can just tell us where you're registered, and I'll get you some kitchen gadget or something ...

I've been fighting since I was twenty, some thirty-five years or so ago. I'm fighting to win this 'til the whistle blows.

Can't imagine the Supreme Court ruling in favor of discrimination. We need to remember and POINT OUT that marriage equality IS NOT a political issue - it's a CIVIL RIGHTS issue and the moment that civil rights becomes a partisan issue is the moment that the ideals of the USA are dead.

I see where you're going with this Dan, and it does rather raise the question: why don't the religionists skip over all this secular judicial folderol and go right to the top? I mean, surely God trumps the United States Supreme Court when it comes to matters such as these, yes? So, why aren't they appealing directly to Yahweh to make a ruling the issue? I mean, he certainly MUST agree with them, right? And he hears everything they say, right? And he always makes his decisions unequivocally clear to all parties, right?

I don't get it. If God is so fucking powerful why doesn't he just settle the matter once and for all? You don't think it could be because...no, it must be some procedural thing, right?

I love it, Dan, when you get in this mode. Now let's go kick ass!

Mazel tov!

Your husband looks salty and green?

And Speedo's? I get more thrill out of a cheap pair of boxer breifs.

FYI: it's not just Santorum who can envision making gay sex a felony again. It's in the Montana Republican Party Official Platform:

"Homosexual Acts
We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

See http://www.mtgop.org/platform.aspx

I don't know that they're the only state with such a platform. And of course, most states where it was illegal have NOT repealed their laws against it; so should a conservative supreme court reverse itself (which it could do), those laws would be right back in effect.

Lawrence v. Texas came down while Bush was president. Yet HRC and other gay Democrats didn't rush to "thank" Bush for his leadership. Why do gay Democrats rush to thank Obama for every crumb we manage to squeeze from his homophobic, warmongering ass?

And when will queers get tired of waiting for years while someone else "gives us" our rights? Yay, we won... Absolutely nothing. Even if queers were allowed all the rights of marriage in California, it's only the state rights, not the big ticket items under federal law.

Lobbying and letting other people "fight" for your rights is bad for suicidal queer youth, but great for the job security of the gay 1%.

@22: I'm not sure whether to refer you to a proctologist or a tree surgeon, what with that massive stick you have up your ass.

@2 and others - Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinions in both Romer and Lawrence - and he went directly to the 14th's equal protections clause in both instances. I honestly believe the current court is predisposed to go 5-4 in favor - not because they favor "gay marriage" but because they believe in "equal protection" that's where the battle should, and will, be won. It's not about getting marriage rights - it's about being treated equally under law IMHO

@17 That brings to mind a story from the Bible - One Holy Prophet against a hundred evil bad pagan-ish priests. The priests called on their god to “please, please, pretty please, if you’re really there, come on baby light my fire.” And of course nothing happens. Then the One Holy Prophet walks over to his pile of wood, dumps a bunch of water on it and BOOM, God ignites the wood.

Maybe we should do that. Fill an arena with The Godly and have them pray for a pile of wood to ignite (after duping water on it, too). If it doesn’t, then marriage equality stands as law, because God obviously doesn’t care all that much.

Abortion, too. I’ll be the lamb on the wood, even. If they burn me, fine, they don’t have to fund Planned Parenthood. If they can’t burn me, then ABORTIONS FOR EVERYBODY!!!

The narrowness of the ruling actually suggests the Supreme Court would not take it. Assuming it stands, it won't affect anything outside California, with one notable exception. Washington is in the 9th Circuit, and this ruling would apply there. In fact, this ruling does apply there, right now. As it stands, the narrow holding in this case would very likely prohibit any initiative effort to amend Washington's constitution to undo equalization there. The facts are very much like those from California.

Washington already has domestic partnerships identical in all but name to marriage. The bill currently under consideration (and due for a key vote in the senate tomorrow) would make them equal in name, too. Any subsequent ballot initiative to amend Washington's constitution would then have the effect of withdrawing the name. It is the exact same situation the 9th Circuit addressed today for California.

True, the decision is narrow, but it isn't so narrow as to have no effect outside California whatsoever.

Thanks Dan, I needed to read this today. (Binational gay couple, living in exile.)

I can't see the Supreme Court consigning gay people to another decade or two of this nonsense. They MUST know that until they give us our freedom we will back as you say. And the idea that millions of gay people in the states with marriage equality, along with the servicemen and women who are barred from equal treatment by DOMA, plus people trying to file a sane tax return (!!) or go bankrupt in peace etc etc will stand idly by is a non-starter. If SCOTUS says no, it will be time to get all fucking Selma riots on their asses.

love you, dan!

fuck. yes.

That marg must be amazing because I've seen your husband in a speedo and, damn, that's fantastic stuff.

@26

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in today's decision, validates Walkers very detailed ruling. I believe that this has the effect of accepting all 80 or so findings of fact from the original hearing [that this discrimination has no legitimate basis, that ss couples make fine parents, &c.] as binding precedent in all of the--very large--9th Circuit states.

That is of course depending on the en banc hearing _if_ the prop 8 proponents are granted one. If there is an en banc, and if we win [very likely], this will be the ruling that gives a great deal of ammo to our side in related cases--not just marriage rights--in a big jurisdiction.

...but IANAL.

Oh, yeah: Suck it h8ters!

@31

Alas, it does not quite have that effect. The court states upfront that adopting all 80 findings is not necessary to resolve the dispute, and declines to do so. If it had, it would have made a ripe target for reversal. In this in particular, the small steps are the way to go. I've made the law my chosen profession, and have a particular affinity for this area. This ruling is the absolute best possible outcome, especially for Californians. It's narrow enough that it shouldn't rise to the level of controversy the Supreme Court usually wants in the cases it takes, so it stands the best chances of finally settling the issue for Californians who have lived in uncertainty since 2008.

Pretty sure this is a public post, Sloggers - feel free to wade into the crazy Mormon fray... https://www.facebook.com/josh.tabak/post…

@33 so if the 9th and SCOTUS pass on taking the case, that's it? It's over, no further appeal or reversal is possible, and the matter is settled? They couldn't try to legislate or referendum away the right to marriage again?

Go Dan!

I hope some one or yourself use really good Tequilla for your next victory drink, and Terry as the artist probably looks good in anything, besides it has good color sense. (for his blonde hair, he should have a black speedo$

This is a bit off-topic and shallow, but what the hell.

Dan has posted plenty of YouTube videos giving college students advice in his tight, musculature-revealing t-shirts. I'd bet money he looks damn good in a Speedo. As sexy 40-something media fags go, he definitely gives Anderson Cooper a run for his money. :-)

And there you have it: An article about a Prop 8 ruling, and all I got from it was the mental image of Dan Savage in a Speedo ... works for me.

Amen. I'm in.

Yes. Yes, Dan, yes.

@35

Well, if it stands, then the Prop 8 supporters could try to get an initiative amendment on the ballot to take away both the name 'marriage' AND the legal incidents of marriage from same-sex couples. They tried this at the same time they were trying Prop 8 and it failed to get enough signatures to make the ballot. Such a thing would be unlikely to pass in a State like California, even if it could get on the ballot. Absent that, California would be pretty much "stuck" with fully equalized marriage.

Why the H8'ers don't just give up is a mystery. No matter how many setbacks, unless the general populace takes up arms against us (and even then), we'll be back in court until we have full equality.
Looks like the "I don't like 'em cause they have the ooky buttsecks and THE BIBLE" arguments aren't flying too well anymore....

Thanks, Dan, for the mental image of you in a speedo.

Terry in a speedo. *mind boggles*

Thanks, Dan. Next time I see him, I'm going to have no trouble at all acting professional. *tugs at collar nervously* ;)

On a more serious note, HELL YEAH it's not over till we win. Well said, Dan.

Damn right. What an inspiring post!

And I agree wholeheartedly, @38. Nice biceps, Dan.

While I remain of the belief that somehow the God-botherers are going to find a way to win this one (all those congregations praying around the clock for poor Justice Ginsburg to develop full-blown cancer have convinced me that they are the more relentless side), the post is inspirational and the occasion well merits dropping the pretence of being a decade younger than is actually the case.

And you will win. Dr. King said that the arch of justice bends towards justice. So true.

I just had a vision of Francis talking to the ant colony... When those grasshoppers get here, we are gonna KNOCK. THEM. DEAD! (roar of the crowd!!!)

I'd say, full marriage equality in all 50 states, and it's over THEN. After that, I don't care what happens. I refuse to spend the rest of my life in a constant state of battle-readiness. It's soul-crushing.

For someone who writes professionally you could have written your whole drunken speech much more succinctly. As for instance-

'I'm a deviant perverted freak with the moral sense of a chimpanzee declaring war on my own culture.'

Yeah. Not really news there little Danny Boy the Savage. We all know you hate integrity, morality, decency of any kind, law as used to express the will of the majority, family and marriage, and generally this nation. Why you feel the need to trumpet your hatred so brazenly is indifferently interesting, the hatred itself is merely a sign of your mental illness.

FYI. You don't have a husband. Whatever the idiots in the legislature say, you never will have. You're a pervert. A mentally ill deviant vulgarian with no redeeming qualities whatever. I've scraped things off my shoes after visiting an off leash park with more value than you. But you're not a husband. The Washington activist legislators can call a thing what it ain't all they like, but it won't change reality for any sane person.

Anytime our friend in #51 chips in, you know you're kicking butt Dan! Keep it up!

PS Troll Institute is looking for new case studies.

@51: You are THIS mad. You're not even trying to make a point here; all you're doing now is playa-hating.

'I'm a deviant perverted freak with the moral sense of a chimpanzee declaring war on my own culture.'

Even if you're someone who believes that to be true of Dan, this isn't the post from which you could extrapolate such mouth-breathing nonsense. It could, however, be put more succinctly, if your facile capacities require as much:

"The fight for what one discerns to be right does not end when one is told, even by the culture at large, that what one fights for is wrong. Until the error is demonstrated, morality insists that a condition of injustice be opposed, at all costs."

. . . law as used to express the will of the majority, family and marriage, and generally this nation.

You've got some of us, there. I do NOT support law used to express the will of the majority, or to circumscribe institutions that are subjectively defined by various groups within the body politic. I've never met a person qualified to be my moral arbiter (and in measuring those qualifications, you don't even make the upper half). What I expect from law--and I demand nothing less, and will brook nothing more--is a baseline protection of person and property so that the various groups, with their opposing institutional definitions, are restrained from infringing on one another's rights, and that institutions recognized by the state for one of those "tribes" is mirrored by equal recognition for essentially identical institutions practiced by another.

You don't have a husband.

Neither does your wife, I daresay; nor have your children a father. I can commend you on their having survived; my assumption would be that any woman small, stupid, or self-hating enough to share coitus with the likes of you would have devoured her progeny at the first hint of anxiety, like a spooked gerbil.

Oh, venomlash, I heart you so much.

Seattleblues, you're particularly non-Christian today. You're showing exactly why it is that so many people are turning against Christians, mentioning the Inquisition and the Witch Hunts at each opportunity, and claiming nothing a Christian says deserves credit.

It's your sheer lack of human compassion, of any inkling of the possibility that Mr Savage might actually be a human being like you, with a heart, a sense of morality, a life, and, yes, a husband whom he loves -- it's this blindness that makes it so easy to see you for the Pharisee you are.

I'm really sorry that you have to spend time expressing your bitter feelings here, rather than try to do something to contribute to the society you purport to support. Your gay neighbors would be ashamed of you, and rightfully so.

I understand that your feelings come from the perception that yours is a dying viewpoint, that people in the future will puzzle about unfair opinions such as yours and wonder how people thought they made sense at all. Especially when you lace them with snippets clearly meant to hurt others. Why cast stones? Why does he think he has to be so mean?

The answer: because he sees the world as a threat, and he has to retaliate. This has nothing to do with morality, with right and wrong, with a sense of fairness or love. This has to do with fear. You're afraid, Seattleblues, you're threatened. And it's a pity that you feel that way, because absolutely nothing is happening that threatens you. Like the proverbial boy afraid of the monster in his closet or under the bet, you're spending time and energy fighting against something that represents no threat whatsoever to you, your life, or your happiness, or in fact anyone else's.

As Ian Curtis once sang, your time is so wastefully spent. Vehemence against a dragon that doesn't exist, outrage at something that is moral and good, anger and invective against a lamb?...

Do you now understand why they preferred Barabbas?...

If only there was a way to reach you, Seattleblues! If only you weren't as afraid as they were when they, like you, chose Barabbas (because the other guy, you know, threatened them with his redefinitions of old ideas, with his bold lifestyle, with his disrespect for certain parts of tradition...)...

But you won't even answer this. Like Caiaphas, you will cook in your anger till you're well done. (Caiaphas was also afraid, and outraged. He also wanted to protect traditional definitions. Sanity. Good.) You won't open your heart and accept a possibility -- a mere possiblity! -- of there being truth elsewhere. Because you basically like your anger. It's soothing, like a soft breeze.

Isn't it? Anger is much better than fear. With anger, at least, you don't have to face the possibility that you may be wrong, that you may have misinterpreted or misjudged something. You avoid penance and attonement.

That is why they, like you, preferred Barabbas.

51, Seattleblues, you're so cute when you're having a nervous breakdown.

The California courts decision is tightly worded. I am not a lawyer but it would seem difficult to launch a successful appeal of this decision precisely because of the wording of the ruling.

Mormons and Catholics, the time is coming when they will be FINISHED. Oh, they will keep on twitching for a while; but they are almost as good as dead, as far as making Public Policy with their strange and bigoted ideas, goes. I am referring of course to the Hierarchy of both religions {or "Cults", is a better word}.
They are BOTH exemplars of superstitious nonsense that they require adherents to give "lip service" to; altho most adults, secretly in their heart of hearts, do not actually go along with the most outlandish bits of the respective {and mutually contradictory} dogmas; but are afraid to say so in public; and continue to try and mis-educate children that way, for political and financial reasons of Church power and solvency.
The Hypocrisy on so many levels, of both Cults, Catholic and Mormon, is just staggering!

Virgin Birth? God's Impregnation through the Virgin's Ear? Fetish Underwear that keeps Sin and Evil Spirits away? Probably adults don't really, REALLY believe in all that -- but they just are afraid to say so, it would erode their positions of power.....
We gotta start calling them out on Hypocrisy issues.... also that they don't actually practice the morals that they preach.....

Whatever his faults and failings, Vote for Obama; not only an anti-Rights Supreme Court, but a whole lot of Federal Judgeships, would be the result of a Fetish Underwear Mormon instead of Obama having charge of appointments for the next 4 years..... holding things up in an unwarranted manner, inconsistent with the real change taking place in Public Opinion.....

why do you idiots even respond to seattleblues? STOP TAKING THE BAIT AND HE/SHIT/IT WILL GO AWAY.

@62, basically, to show that I see what the answers are. To keep my muscles toned, to have the data and the arguments ready. You never know when that might come in handy.

ok, sure. but maybe just do that shit in yr head. how awesome would it be to see seattleblues post a bunch of idiocy and no one take the bait?

I haven't been around for a while... has Seattleblues gotten worse? It seems like he's gotten worse.

The thing to understand about Seattleblues that he doesn't express very eloquently is that he just knows from experience that sex is so much hotter when it's taboo. All the freedoms and rights are good and proper, but people like Seattleblues know that good and proper aren't always precursors to hot, hot sex in the same way taboos and the risk of getting caught are. He's just trying to keep gay sex hot, don'tchaknow ...