The California Decision in re Marriage Cases
A decision has been made and it's about time--click: Opinion

I am at the Positive Resource Center on the tenth floor of 785 Market street in San Francisco and it is a very hot day here--plus there is no air-conditioning in most places in this town--so even with the windows open it is quite hot. The sidewalks of Market are filled with locals and tourists enjoying the unusual weather, but I just wish it would go away. However, for people watching the conditions are prime, so I called my friend Brahm, whose office is just around the corner on Mission to arrange for our regular coffee chat at the Venue Cafe across from the Old Mint, our usual perch.

He was bubbling over with enthousiasm, even though he is not gay himkself, announcing that the California Supremes have issued a favorable opinion on the issue of gay marriage, clearing the way for gender neutral marriage legislation. Such legislation was passed twice before in Sacramento but that mousy man  Arnold vetoed both. However,  for now we seem to have gotten the last peep.

If you wonder why I refer to der Arnold as mousy, read about my little mousy roommate and click on: or on:

It's about time California's Supremes came to grips with injustice and now they finally seem to have done so, and just I as expected (in: ) our  Great State of California has joined the small group of more enlightened societies of the western world that followed the earliest example of The Netherlands. I am now both a proud Dutchmen and a proud Californian--and when America elects Obama, I may soon become a proud American as well, for he has his heart clearly in the right place, even though for some inexplicable reason, the gay community en large supported Hillary Clinton. I am not sure why, but suspect it might have something to do with the pronounced homophobia of many black church groups--just as their pronounced xenophobia may have prompted the Hispanic community to go for Hillary--or perhaps with the strong lesbian component among the LGBT community.

Let me quote a  passage from the California Supreme Court opinion issued today, May 15, 2008:

As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family—constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society. Furthermore, 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 genderdoes 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.

The Los Angeles Times reported:

In a 4-3 decision, the justices rule that people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice and that gender restrictions violate the state Constitution's equal protection guarantees. 

In the EMM News Explorer you can find how this news was reported elsewhere--a Dutch news source wrote:

'Verbod homohuwelijk ongrondwettelijk'  it  tr  [Prohibition Gay Marriage unconstitutional]

and here are some report from other places:

De Standaard Online - Hof van Californië laat homohuwelijk   [Court of California allows Gay Marriage]

Grünes Licht für Homo-Ehe in Kalifornien  (Green Light for Gay Marriage in California]

California: le nozze gay diventano legali  [California: Gay Marriages become legal]

La Corte Suprema de California declara inconstitucionales las leyes que prohíben las bodas gays  [The Supreme Court of California declares laws that prohibit Gay Marriages unconstitutional]

Etats-Unis - Les mariages homosexuels bientôt légaux en Californie ? [United States - Homosexual marriages soon to be legal in California?]

In Belgium, gay marriage has of course been legal for some time, but as a sign of the glacially flowing times, in November 2007 the resistance in the Protestant Christian community was finally also breaking down:

Homohuwelijk mag in Protestantse Kerk België - Maroc.NL [Gay Marriage allowed in Protestant Church]

Standaard Homohuwelijk mag in Protestantse Kerk België - 29 november 2007, 21:21
BRUSSEL - De synode van de Protestantse Kerk in België (VPKB) geeft plaatselijke gemeenten de vrijheid hun zegen uit te spreken over relaties van homoseksuelen. Dat is de uitkomst van ruim drie jaar beraad binnen de synode van de kerk.

Vooral in de Franstalige districten Henegouwen en Waals-Brabant bestaat veel verzet tegen het zegenen van relaties van homoseksuelen. Van de honderd gemeenten die in de VPKB samenwerken, liggen er zestig in Wallonië. De kerk heeft ongeveer 50.000 leden.

België stelde in 2003 het burgerlijk huwelijk open voor mensen van hetzelfde geslacht. De VPKB ziet het huwelijk niet als sacrament. Zij sluit geen huwelijk, maar kan Gods zegen vragen over een echtpaar dat wettelijk is getrouwd, sprak de VPKB-synode uit.

As I wrote even last Monday ( ):

There will always be a competitive struggle between the folks who love things just the way they are, and those who thrive on change. But the struggle need not be as venomous as it has sometimes been. Older structures can be remodelled in such a way that the people that love to inhabit them continue to feel at home--provided they are willing to deal with the minor inconvenience remodelling always involves.

A little bit of chaos in one's life is not too high a price to pay for maintaining the functionality of one's physical or conceptual dwelling place. Those who are overly afraid of such remodelling chaos, don't want to take the risk or subject themselves to the inconvenience, will eventually pay a much higher price, or see their sinfully dysfunctional  structure simply fall apart. Wat een zonde--what a sin, what a pity!

Undoubtedly there will be some remodelling inconvenience caused by this decision of the California Supreme Court--but what is a tiny bit of conceptual chaos compared to doing justice long overdue? 

Unlike last Monday, it is very hot today--it feels almost like I'm in Gabon with the Bonobos, who must also feel very good about this belated show of justice for all--sexy little perverts that they are. If you want to know why I am referring to the Bonobos, read what I wrote on that chilly Monday--it all hangs together somehow.

As you can tell, I am a politically moderate guy who likes his climate moderate as well. Oh boy, I don't know how people put up with this kind of heat wave in other parts of the country where the weather is like this all summer long, or in other parts of the world, where it is this way all the time!

The prospect of having to actually live in a globally warmed earth is terribly unappealing to me. It would be enough to  drive me crazy. It also makes me feel a great deal of compassion for people in Darfur and Myanmar and now Szechuan, where the heat is only a minor factor compared to what homo is doing to homini. Oh me, oh my, oh Myanmar--how can their government be so callous. 

They are worse than Browny, who was merely callously incompetent, for the generals in Myanmar are competently callous, like that awful man in Zimbabwe, or the fellow in North Korea, or that government in Sudan.  It is almost incomprehensible. But maybe it is the heat that drives them crazy.

Washington too can be awfully hot in summer--maybe that explains what has been going on there as well.

It does seem that cooler, more moderate climates seem to make for cooler, more moderate policies.

I were more callous, I'd say that the Chinese are encountering divine justice for the way they have been dealing with Tibet, which happens to be located right next to Szechuan--but I don't believe in such a God. Nor would I call it poetic justice, for the innocent people of  Szechuan don't deserve such a judgment either.

Last night I saw another Publican on C-Span obviously gone crazy from the heat belittling Gore's comments about the cyclone in Myanmar being a portent of worse things to come due to climate change. The man was from California--southern California, of course, Costa Mesa, in fact, where Louis's relatives lived--and they were plenty crazy as well. His name is  U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher : 46th District Of California  and let me tell you, he was practically foaming at the mouth.

I have no quarrel with that portion of his remarks that reflected on the dysfunctionality of the Myanmar regime--for they deserve to be flogged for what they are doing, or rather for their failure to do very much--but to tie this in with the issue of climate change, or rather the categorical denial that climate change is an impending catastrophy of which we are beginning to see the early symptoms is in itself as dysfunctional as anything the generals in Myanmar are guilty of--with potentially far worse consequences for humanity and many other species on earth. That guy, Dana Rohrabacher, looks so deceptively gemuetlich and pleasant, but he can be pretty venomous, as his remarks about Gore made clear.

But you know what--it is just too hot for me to continue writing--I can't even think straight anymore, let alone gay! I mean, two digits is all it takes for me to get real uncomfortable here on the coast, temperatures in three digits, like they are having now in de binnenlanden, in the interior, I can't even imagine dealing with. So I have to say sayonara for now. Time to go home and take a cool shower.