D.J.'s great grandchildren should be good to go at this rate.

¡Viva México!

@2 is right.

That said, to your question, Dan: Until either the old people die off or you do what needs to be done to force change.

You've started down the path, but you have to keep going.

"the bigoted cream in the marriage-equality Oreo Cookie"

Maybe more like the half of a worm in the marriage-equality apple.

@2: Jerk! You stole my line! O mejor dicho: ¡pendejo! ¡Me robaste el comentario!

Until we are no longer a theocracy, unfortunately.

Don't forget though that the U.S. is *leagues ahead* of the majority of the world on acceptance of gay relationships. The Middle East, Africa, Asia, lots of Eastern Europe - the majority view of these countries is that gay is *wrong* and, at a minimum, weird, dirty or a disability. And let's not forget about South America that's pretty damn homophobic, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah - but what about Rio & Buenos Aires? - exceptions in a vast sea of unacceptance. Go there. The U.S. is doing pretty damn well compared to most of the planet.

Bad analogy, since Oreo-eaters eat the filling and discard the cookie-parts.

Judge Walker's temporary stay on the Prop 8 ruling may bring about some swift changes.
CA's Gov. and A.G. are the ones being asked to stay. Both want to resume marriage equality immediately, and they're the only ones who speak for the state of California.
If marriage resumes (and it should) we may see higher courts step in faster than anyone expected.

@8: Uh-oh Oreos, then?

On the up side, this case was almost assuredly over the second Olson stepped in. We just have to plod through the system until Olson can see his ideological buddies Alito, Scalia and Roberts again.

@7

Wrong! Fail! We need to always compare ourselves to first world democracies, not third world countries and not theocratic nations.

It's like saying we're great on issues of women's equality just because women don't have to wear a burqa here like they do in Iran.

That's just not good enough. We need to compare ourselves to nations such as the Netherlands, not nations such as Afghanistan.

@8

I think you're neglecting the fact that while the cream is delicious and everyone wants it, ITS GONNA KILL YOU!!!

@11

Do you actually have any evidence that Ted Olson is actually against gay marriage and that this case was actually a set up?

I doubt that you do.

Maybe IT IS time to give Mexico back the land we stole in a phony war!

Lincoln had it right, after all.

Would "shit sandwich" be a better analogy?

@14: That went over your head, but that means it's probably going over the heads of a lot of people like the NOM folks. Yay, pat on my own back for that one.

Often cranial-anal inversions require the stimulation of embarrassment to inspire corrective surgery. One day we will know that ALL men are created equal. Or as Tim Rutten of the LA Times put it, "It's no comfort to gay and lesbians currently denied the right to marry, but the demographic truth is that time alone will vindicate their struggle for equality." I'd say that in a little help from our neighbors to the north and to the south.

Many thanks to Mexico for providing us a much needed lesson on equality. Congratulations.

@12 Nicely said.

I think we should all have smores in honor of Ted from Alaska who's making them right now, in the fires of Hades.

When Prop 8 hits the Supreme Court, we've got it.

Dan, you realize this isn't saying gay marriage is law of the land in all of Mexico right? Just that other states must recognize marriages performed within the one state in Mexico that does have gay marriage (the capitol & largest city).

I mean, this IS great! And probably the path the US would have been on if not for DOMA (default gay marriage kind of: other states would have to recognize--if not give out themselves--gay marriages from other states). Couples go to Iowa, DC, Mass. etc, get married, and then go collect the federal benefits even if they can't get the document in their own anti-gay marriage state.

#12: Yes and we should also acknowlege which countries have full civil unions (everything but the name a la WA State) and not "gay marriage".

I get tired of people saying OMG THE WHOLE WORLD HAS GAY MARRIAGE BUT NOT US! Actually, it's still in single-digits. France, UK, and many other places do have equal federal domestic partnerships though and I think these "whole world" people are including them.

@12 Yes! Also, keep in mind that on the infant mortality scale, which (I believe) is the benchmark used to evaluate nations, the US is at #33, behind Slovenia, Cuba, and Cyprus. So, not leagues ahead, Confluence, in this area.

How about a hot dog analogy instead? Nice, crusty bread on either side, with assholes in the middle. (...except for you Sloggers, of course...)

#21: You really think so? I'm not so sure we can rely on Kennedy but I hope you are right.

Kagen and Roberts are not sure things (either way) in my opinion either.

Strangely, I think if the constitutionality of DOMA made it to the SCOTUS we would have it in the bag. I actually could see Thomas voting with the so-called "liberals" on this one as a strict constructionist who believes marriage laws simply belong to the states and shouldn't have congressional influence.

Everyone knows the drug cartels run the governments down there right? And who buys all the drugs? Teh gayz....

;)

@11, 17

I read your comment at #11 to mean that the case was some conspiracy where Ted Olson was actually against gay marriage and that he had taken this case deliberately to send it to the Supreme Court.

Did I read your first comment wrong?

So basically gay marriage is now legal for middle class and rich Mexicans but still illegal for poor Mexicans living outside Mexico City?

Since poor Mexicans will not be able to afford to travel there.

@27: Yes, you read it very wrong.

@25

THANK YOU! I keep telling everyone that my money is on Thomas siding with the liberals on DOMA. It's so easy for everyone to look at him as a dumb Scalia-follower, instead of trying to explain how a black judge could possibly have a non-liberal judicial philosophy. I frequently disagree with Thomas, but unlike Scalia (who is normally a brilliant scholar but punts whenever gay/social issues come up), Thomas strictly applies his philosophy regardless of the outcome. Thomas may vote in favor of prop 8 being constitutional, but I have a hard time seeing him vote in favor of DOMA.

@29 thanks for the clarification.

@29 Sheesh, Baconcat...keep this up and you'll get that button after all...

Now we have another win. This time in Costa Rica:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/1700…

Time is passing are you?..That is how I feel on this...Time stands still for no one. It is time?..it has to be? Not getting any younger!!!

"One of the justices, Sergio Aguirre, argued against adoptions by same-sex couples Tuesday, saying children might suffer discrimination as a result."

Still, though.

"Getting"? Sheesh, I can never show my face in another country again.

@35 ...and he went on to discuss the new ban on atheist children in Utah, evangelical children in Cambridge, Mass, red haired children everywhere, and smart children in Wasilla, Alaska.

#s12, 14, 15 27, 28, 31, Considering that there's that country in Africa that wants to KILL people for being gay, I think the US is SLOWLY getting MUCH better on gay rights. Even former homophobes like myself are coming around to embracing, even voting for, gay rights. After the sperm, I mean supreme court roasts prop 8 we can fight for the constitutional amendment. Keep working, STOP whining.

that was just about the most tasteless and offensive comment i've ever seen you spew out, Will. do us all a favor and donate your body to science NOW.

@32: Aw, pffffeeehhhh. It's hard for me to get into it, but blah blah blah, FedSoc, Olson wrote most of what Alito, Roberts and Scalia follow as originalist thought, Olson was originally in line for Alito and Roberts' jobs, personal freedom, Scrobita are conservative but libertarian, etc.

7 - 2 with Scalia writing a lukewarm dissent with Thomas and Thomas going off the rails against gays again.

The sort of secular society you have will depend on the road by which you've all come to it. A lapsed Catholic is a different crearture from a lapsed Protestant. Canada and Mexico are (to varying degrees, obviously) post-Catholic societies. The USA has always been a Protestant Christian "nation" : here, even the progressives are not necessarily past it.

Spunky @ 38: When was being gay an actual, capital crime in the USA? Legally at least, the USA has ALWAYS been "better" than that.

Alright Riel. I'm typing this a five-minute walk from the spot where they hanged you. You don't type like a hanged man. What's your game, Louis? What's your damn game?

The poor bastard whom the Sun-never-sets Gang strung up sure wasn't me. I lived out my natural span in republican Montana, baby, and had lots of puppies. Glad to be out of the game !

#40: You really think Alito would vote that to Overturn Prop 8 and concur with the recent decision by Judge Walker? Not on your life!

SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8: we win 5 to 4 if Kennedy sees the light; or 6 to 3 if Roberts thinks a lot about Place in History and that kind of stuff, but don't count on him.

SCOTUS to overturn DOMA: Same equation (not sure on Roberts again) but Thomas votes with the "liberals" albeit for entirely different reasons.

Alito and Scalia are the two we can count on as being reliably anti-gay. Kennedy is a likely but uncertain ally without O'Connor. Roberts is kind of a wild card, and Thomas is only a wild card if its overturning DOMA, if its the Prop 8/Walker "homosexuals are a special, protected class of peoples under the 14th Amendment" case forget Thomas. In fact, he'd probabky have a harsher, even seperate dissent and call the whole thing hogwash.

Anyone think it's weird that we're lagging on this issue behind countries with populations that are approximately 100% Catholic?

@Louis Riel: Oh, I'm so tired of this "Christian Nation" bullshit. This country was EXPLICITLY founded as secular. Yeah, the majority of the population did (and does) identify as "Christian" (although that can mean practically anything in terms of belief these days), but we have safeguards enacted specifically to protect minorities (atheists; black people; gay people; people of Mexican heritage, who are becoming less and less of a minority, which terrifies the white Christian hillbilly bigots; etc.) from the tyranny of the majority.

The big problem for the loony fundamentalists is that there's this Fourteenth Amendment to our constitution, backed up by the Civil Rights Act, that guarantees equal protection (rights, responsibilities) to everyone. A gay-marriage ban is sex-based discrimination, which is patently illegal. As a man I can marry woman X, but as a woman my sister cannot marry woman X. It's as simple as that: same woman that we're trying to marry, and our rights are determined by our sex. I honestly don't understand how this is ever not a five minute decision for a judge. The law is unambiguously clear on this point. I get that people may be UNHAPPY with the fact that this is the law (and they are, as they want gender-based law in other areas too), but "I don't like this law" isn't a legally-valid argument.

stick your christian up your ass and puritan my balls. now, what about that drink?

now imagine that as a chet baker vocal. fuck.....

Viva Mexico!

@46 Quite right -- the state was founded by secularists (or Freemasons, anyway) who certainly did hope to keep the pulpit-loiterers out of the works. And protecting minorities is a blessed thing. But hey, they also wanted to avoid centralism. And they never planned on slavery ending, nor universal suffrage, etc., right? So let us not focus overmuch on what they intended.
To say the US has been "(Protestant) Christian" all along is merely to observe. This can be good as well as bad; at times Christianism has been as much a force for "progressive" legislation as proper socialism would have been -- ending slavery (good), prohibiting alcohol (bad).
You're right to say that these days "Christian .. can mean practically anything in terms of belief" -- even Mormons! I don't know how right you are to specify the baddies as "white Christian hillbilly bigots / loony fundamentalists." Most church-goers do not fit this description -- but what the hell are they doing about it?

@23: For what it's worth, it's not "in the single digits:" 1) Canada, 2) Iceland, 3) Sweden, 4) Norway, 5) Belgium, 6) The Netherlands, 7) Spain, 8) Portugal, 9)South Africa, 10) Argentina. And that's not counting Mexico.

Did you guys see the CNN poll that shows 52% of the US population now supports gay marriage? I'd say the coverage of the Walker ruling is having an effect. The bigots have no case, and once on the witness stand where lying is a crime they practically admitted as much. Even the conservative members of the Supreme Court are going to have a hard time denying the facts of the matter once those facts are presented in their courtroom. Even if they do manage to find a line of reasoning that allows them to punt the issue and keeps Kennedy in their camp, remember - it will take years for the case to work its way to them and I expect there will be a wave of victories at the state level in the near future. The Supremes may well find themselves dealing with a question that is settled not in five states, but in fifteen. Or twenty-five, even. The main thing that seems to make them afraid of doing the right thing is the fear of a second Roe v. Wade - a decision that didn't settle the issue, but inflamed it permanently and damaged the reputation of the court. Well, when Roe v. Wade was decided there was only one state with legal abortion (New York). Having a lot more states on board will make it easier for them to see that this issue is different from abortion. Once gay marriage is legal nationwide and everyone gets to see that no one is harmed by it, the issue will go away.

See, there are two offensive things about your post. First, you're implying, with your title "This is getting embarrassing" that Mexico is a backwards country and it's surprising that they have perceived superiority over the U.S. in anything. I think that this is a very bigoted view of the world.

Second, you used the word bigot to describe anyone who opposes gay marriage can only do so out of bigotry towards gays. Again, I think that this is a very bigoted and narrow view of the world.

http://futuretwits.blogspot.com