"In the hallway at KPBS, talking to our editor Nicole Lozare ."
Twenty, 30, 40 years from now -- that's how I'll answer the question about how I heard yesterday's news about the California Supreme Court's decision in In Re Marriage Cases . Alma , Trina and I had just finished an appearance on These Days with Tom Fudge at 10 a.m. I knew the decision from the court was due at 10:00, and turned on my Blackberry as soon as we left the studio to check the news.
As we were talking I looked down and saw the alert from the New York Times: The ban had been overturned.
Steven from South San Diego
May 16, 2008 at 04:56 PM
Full equality as long as the loving couple never leaves the borders of California, and/or catches direct flights to Massachusetts.
This made me chuckle... All I can say is it's about time that ALL people have equal rights, at least in California... It's about damn time.
Davesnot
from Oceanside
May 19, 2008 at 07:46 AM
What saddens me .. on this very happy occassion.. is that it was even necessary. People are people.. people love people.. people can marry people.. it shouldn't be a story.. But I'm damn glad it's this story for a change and not the other one.
Matthew C. Scallon
May 22, 2008 at 04:47 PM
Chuck, before you get your registries together, I hate to dash cold water on your celebration.
The initiative which the California Supreme Court overturned by a one vote majority, passed by a 61-39 margin. That's a 22% margin. And, since there will be another initiative on the ballot this coming November which will be a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage, it's not a stretch of the imagination to see the remaining 5-2/3% coming out to vote for that constitutional amendment.
The sad thing about this, sir, is that it didn't need to happen this way. The Supreme Court didn't have to overturn the will of the people if your side of sanctity of marriage debate didn't characterize all supporters of the sanctity of marriage as homophobes. That was the tactic your side decided to use, and now you'll have to live with the consequences. I'll feel sorry for then, because there could have been a middle way which could have satisfied everyone. Your side doesn't like moderation, because it require your side to admit that my side has a point, so now you'll going to have to live with a constitutional amendment.
Will you remember where you will be when that constitutional amendment passes? I know I won't, because it will have no bearing on my life. What I will remember is that it didn't have to go this way.
Gina from San Diego
May 24, 2008 at 01:40 AM
If it has no bearing on your life why do you seem so invested in "your side" and supporting the so-called sanctity of marriage? How in the world is there a middle road for equality? If "your side" manages to get the issue on the Nov ballot, I for one will remember this argument when voting vehemently against an amendment banning marriage equality. And tell 100 of my closest friends to do the same.
Matthew C. Scallon
May 26, 2008 at 01:04 AM
@Gina, I'm glad you asked. What your side describes as "marriage equality" is already covered under a power of attorney. Many people, platonically, familiarly, and romantically related, gay and straight, sign these powers of attorney without anyone from my side of the sanctity of marriage debate crying in our respective beers (including myself).
Frankly, what your side describes as marriage is better described as a power of attorney. I know, I know, it doesn't have the romantic ring of matrimony, but it fits your side's definition without overturning the will of the people or redefining marriage to suit your side's purposes.
BTW, this isn't just my assessment. KPBS' own Scott Horsley did a story which came to the same conclusion.
You ask where the middle ground. There it is. Now, please tell that to 100 of your closest friends.
