crackberry wrote: Kretzy wrote: managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.I don't want to get married
--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option.
I'd kind of like to...
Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.
Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.
There's also the fact that the Yes on 8 campaign was very good at using California's social libertarianism against itself. My ex-girlfriend's mom, who's Catholic but still quite liberal in social issues (e.g. abortion), voted for Proposition 8 because she believed that without it, churches opposed to same-sex marriage would be forced to officiate over them. She voted for Prop. 8 on libertarian grounds, as weird as that sounds to you and me.
But yeah, California will probably be the first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum. Gay marriage only lost by 5 percentage points in 2008. By the time it gets on the ballot (likely in 2012), four more years of young voters -- who supported gay marriage by 2:1 --will be on the rolls, and four more years of old, anti-gay voters dying will have transpired. The demographic logic alone warrants a strong presumption in favor of a win for gay marriage in 2012, and when you also consider that the Mormon Church regrets its involvement in 2008 and is thus unlikely to donate $20 million and its grassroots force again, the legalization of gay marriage in California looks like an inevitability.