Since when is it cruel to boycott a business that supports things that are against your interests, and to encourage others to do the same? That seems about as free market as you can get. I don’t think anyone expects anti-abortion advocates to get family planning advice from Planned Parenthood. And I’m sure that a few people who voted for Prop 8 avoid openly gay owned businesses.

If a business is going to support something by donating to the cause, not just voting for it, personally I would like to know. And yeah, it would affect whether or not I do my business there. Maybe they’ll think twice about who their customers are next time they decide to take an openly political stance on something that affects the community.

Since they didn’t, then it’s reasonable (at least to me) to presume that in the view of CA’s highest court, the current state constitution doesn’t speak to it. In other words, as of today, it’s not a civil right according to the CA state constitution.

But then hey, I’m a guy who doesn’t think that rights actually exist floating out in space waiting for us to discover them. I think they only come into existence when humans declare them to exist and then enforce them. Guess I’m a kook that way. :-)

EOTWAWKI?

AIFF. LOL.

(Of course the legislature already had the power to do that, and the numbers as well. They even passed a same-sex marriage bill in 2005, which Ah-nuld vetoed.)

I disagree with the “equal protection & equal rights” argument that the Cali Supremes used in the previous decision, but that’s neither here nor there in this case other than to emphasize my belief that such fundamental changes in existing law (the creation of new rights) should come from the legislature, not the courts, and that the decision was based on flawed legal reasoning. The backlash from such judicial activism has done much more to hurt gays on the issue than help.

It’ll be interesting to see how the new Maine law plays out. The anti-SSM folks have a “people’s veto” on the ballot for November, but I doubt the veto will pass. Give us a decade or so of existing SSM’s not leading to the EOTWAWKI, and much of the heat will leak out of the counter-arguments. Unless, of course, pro-SSM forces continue to treat all dissenters from the complete gay acitivist orthodoxy as heretics to be burned at the stake.

It is of course true that the people of CA have the right to change their mind, and that advocates have the right to persuade them to do so. And that’s consoling.

But it’s not a win, it’s a loss. I am fine with people being positive and optimistic about the future, but when they stretch the spin to call a big loss a win, that bugs me.

If I were gay, it would irritate even more if someone tried to tell me this was a win. Maybe this is an OK approach for a kindergarten teacher with a 5 year old, but adults don’t like to be patronized.

I’d rather you encourage supporters of gay marriage to go out and try to convince people on the merits of the argument as opposed to the harrassment, threats, beating up little old ladies, forcing people to lose their jobs, etc. that happened when popular opinion didn’t go their way.

Note to all supporters: Civil discourse and reasoned debate will win more “fights” in the public arena than temper-tantrums will.