Somebody just texted me with “California supreme court just overturned the ban on same sex marriage. Is it time for Flowers for Al and Don 2?”
My first reaction: “crap, like I’ve got time for that”.
But this is great news. It’s a fantastic victory in this long-fought battle. From The Chicago Tribune:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would’ve granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
Conservative organizations, of course, will be ramping up their campaigns. If this becomes a central campaign issue for the national election, who does it help? I’m guessing McCain, but I’m not sure.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
I suspect this issue will be a non-starter for both parties because they have both came out against same sex marriage already. Barack will leave this to the “guns and Bibles” crowd, and McCain will not touch this for fear of alienating his centre right base ( the religious right already hates him anyway ).
5000 posts is a lot. You’re no slouch.
These are great news indeed, and thanks for highlighting then Darren
In the grand scheme of things, it’s not a great victory, it’s not a big victory, it’s not even a small victory. It won’t be a victory until SCOTUS says gays can marry just like heterosexuals. And, as you are well aware, for some time, Californian gays (and gays from anywhere else, for that matter) could come to Canada and get married.
For the record: a great victory would be the abolition of capital punishment in the US, or the “not guilty” verdict for Omar Khadr.
JohnB: Great victories are clearly in the eye of the beholder, because your examples sure don’t match mine.
Well, I agree with you: perspective is everything. Once one country allowed gay marriages, the big victory was won (the remaining countries were just “mopping up” operations).
As for capital punishment, there have been recent minor victories in the US (at last: recognition that people who were minors at the time of the crime should not be executed. at last: recognition that people who are mentally challenged should not be executed). But — and I find this so totally bizarre: a debate on how humane it is to use a particular cocktail of chemicals when you are executing a person?
But you’ve made me curious: gay marriage is, for you a great victory. What other changes would you classify as great victories?
(And I wish I could edit my comment to insert a comma after “for you” in the last para.)
JohnB: To clarify, I meant that it was a ‘fantastic victory’ for the people involved in ‘this long-fought battle’. I wouldn’t personally qualify it as a great victory on the scale I describe below.
Great victories, off the top of my head:
* Eradicating AIDS, hunger or poverty in the developing world
* The developed world embraces a feasible alternative energy plan, thus eliminating reliance on foreign oil and seriously reducing impact on the environment.
* Nations make wholesale changes to seriously reduce their impact on climate change.
Capital punishment in the USA is repulsive, but in terms of human impact, it’s a drop in the bucket. The country has only executed about 1100 people since 1976. It’s morally reprehensible, but its scope just isn’t that big.
“for the people involved” – ah, yes, am in agreement with you on that.
Your others are more scientific than sociological (which is where I’d put gay marriage) and they seem to be right up with the mom and apple pie — but you won’t get any argument from me.
I disagree with you about 1,100 people being a drop in the bucket — every life is precious — but you should be aware than a number of those executed were innocent people, some were children when the crimes were committed and some were mentally challenged and not fully able to appreciate the nature of their actions. I won’t bore you, or your readers, by rehashing all the arguments against capital punishment but will mention just one: the totally capricious nature in which it is applied makes “only … 1100 people” a big thing (to me, at least) indeed.