A sign of something. Jesus knows what…

The California Supreme Court has just overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage, with a decision dismisses restrictions on gay marriage as being as unconstitutional (at least in California) as bans on interracial marriage.

Here’s the full decision (PDF).

And the core of it:

In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution
properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

Choate student Marla Spivak turned the screws yesterday to Karl Rove, in one of the bravest performances Steven Colbert hit the White House correspondents’ dinner:

From the Hartford Courant:

Then there was Marla Spivak.

Spivak, a senior from Hamden… asked Rove to explain how giving gay people the right to marry would endanger other people.

Rove took issue with the way the first gay marriages came about, through the Massachusetts Supreme Court. An issue as important as the definition of marriage should be resolved by a legislature or a referendum, not a court, he said.

Gay couples could gain the legal rights of married couples through legislation without actually getting married, he said.

But wouldn’t creating a separate body of legislation for gay people be creating a separate but equal system, a step back?, Spivak asked.

Rove replied with an answer about Mormons changing their views on marriage to conform with the nation’s laws.

Spivak kept pressing. “You never actually answered, how does it threaten anyone?” she asked.

Rove asked, what’s the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?

What, Spivak countered, was the compelling reason for society to allow interracial relationships when they had once been outlawed.

Then Rove invoked the Declaration of Independence before Spivak interjected that its reference to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” seemed to support her claims.

Their verbal pingpong match tapered off after Rove… asked when she planned to run for political office.

The veil slipped with his spoken desire to amend the constitution in His name.

Now the Huckster is comparing gay love to pedophilia, bigamy and, yes, man-on-dog:

I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.

Where have we heard this all before?

Politics as usual for the Kentucky GOP; listen to Pat Boone’s anti-gay robocall.

Earlier, Pat Boone’s Folsom Street phase:

UPDATE: How low will they go: Here’s another robocall, this one purporting to be from the Homosexual Lobby itself, endorsing Bashear.

…who had a gay-pride problem with the GOP Base.

The Note unearths this Mitt Romney flier from 2002:

Which seems fairly tame (if flaming pink) in comparison to Rudy’s repeated celebration of the Stonewall Rebellion, and hosting of Pride events at Gracie Mansion.

Most difficult for Rudy to squirm away from, however, will be this 2002 letter in which he frames the Stonewall riots as a “triumph” in the “struggle for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Civil Rights.” [Emphasis added.]

I would love to believe that base Republicans would vote for a man who calls gay rights ‘civil rights’ but something tells me that just won’t fly in South Carolina.

Now if only Fred Thompson went to church…

Obama gets some gay on.

Mr. Maverick, where have you gone?

I take the unmaking of John McCain personally. Another lifetime ago, when he was running against Gov. G.W. Bush, I registered Republican to vote for McCain in the California presidential primary. He struck me as a principled problem solver. A man who might bring about a post-partisan revolution in good government and accountability.

So it’s truly disheartening to watch McCain jettison the principled independence that used to make him a transcendent figure. Jerry Fallwell, formerly an “agent of intolerance” in McCain’s estimation is now a chum, who no doubt smiled when McCain decided to deliver the keynote address at a creationist convention.

Abortion used to be a woman’s choice. Now it’s time to overturn Roe v. Wade, says McCain. McCain says he doesn’t believe in building a border fence, but then, suddenly, in the same sentence, he offers to build the “damn fence” if the GOP base demands it. Same goes for gay marriage, which he recently said “should be allowed”, until an adviser whispered in his ear, prompting him to clarify, “I do not think that gay marriages should be legal.”

The one arena in which McCain’s independence had remained resolute is his support for this disastrous war. Right or wrong you knew where he stood. And he’s rightly been paying the price for that. The “surge” has become in popular parlance “The McCain Doctrine.” More recently, McCain was rechristened by Chris Matthews as “John McBush.”

So what’s a maverick to do? Stick to his guns? Weather the storm?

No. Now it’s time to speak out against…Donald Rumsfeld. (more…)