Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Piece of the justice

By Tom Toles



Friday rant, homophilia edition

Every once in a while, a judicial decision gets it right in a way that makes it all so obvious. The California ruling on gay marriage is one of those. If only it could settle the politics. But, no, the spiteful right will appeal, and on it goes. As in so many ways now, conservatives don't even know what the REAL conservative position IS. Letting gay couples marry, in fact, ENCOURAGING them to marry, is the authentic conservative position, if conservatives still had the mental wherewithal to think this one through.

But they don't and won't. They will prefer to go on trying to pretend and legislate and adjudicate gay people away. Oh, how they pine for the days of the closet. Hey, there are walk-in closets now!

But the closed minds and small hearts are going to lose this one. They lost this week when a judge had the good sense to write the obvious. And whatever happens to this case down the road, gay Americans will win their full and equal rights eventually. And the dramatic pace of change in public opinion on this subject means that eventually is a lot sooner than later. This may be my only rant that ends with YAY! --Tom Toles




By Tom Toles  | August 6, 2010; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  Same-sex marriage  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The list goes on
Next: Born to run

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:


So... you are a conservative thinker but are scared to come out of the closet because because you will get pigeonholed as a knuckle dragging repug by your liberal friends? That's free thinking, dude.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | August 6, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand your point of view.

Could you please explain your view concerning the difference between
'marriage' and a'Civil Union'?

Posted by: bertzel | August 6, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I understand why gay folks want all the legal rights involved in a union; I also understand why religious folks find gay marriage repugnant. Is this all much ado about semantics? Let's call the union of straights "marriage" and the union of gays "queeriage".

Posted by: CAservative

If you understand the meaning of semantics you should also understand the meaning of tolerance. Then again your 'verbage' speaks volumes...

Posted by: bertzel | August 6, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Dear jonroesler, do you think that Americans that live in the border States have the RIGHT to live safely and be protected from illegal immigrants that cross into this Country to commit crimes? Or do they have to live with border crossings because of the OPINION of the Left?

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 6, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Someone said, "Fearless Leader has a problem though. President Obama agreed with civil unions but was against gay marriage. Wellllllllll?"

That's the thing with us Liberals. One of the (perhaps few) things we agree on is that Obama is entitled to his opinion and the right to live his life without trampling on our rights, and we're each entitled to our opinions and the right to live our lives without trampling on each others rights.

It's what makes America great!

(Sure, a person could say that intolerance, bigotry and hatred, where they exist, are what make America great. But, they'd be wrong.)

Posted by: jonroesler | August 6, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

On "traditions..."

Slavery was a tradition. Sharia is a tradition. In certain locations, even cannibalism was a tradition. So...?

Posted by: hayesap8 | August 6, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Yay! and Thanks again, Mr Toles!

Posted by: lufrank1 | August 6, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I understand why gay folks want all the legal rights involved in a union; I also understand why religious folks find gay marriage repugnant. Is this all much ado about semantics? Let's call the union of straights "marriage" and the union of gays "queeriage".

Posted by: CAservative | August 6, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I always try to keep an open mind, that being said…I have nothing against gay couples.
I can also understand the “religious” aspect concerning ‘marriage’.
I have understood that gay couples’ main intention/concern was to have the same equal rights as heterosexual ‘married’ couples have; i.e. tax breaks, social security, hospital visits, inheritance, respect, etc. etc.
Those interests deal mainly with the legal side of ‘marriage’ and therefore a Civil Union would be in order granting the gay community legal rights when it comes to their ‘union’.

I also understand some religious groups belief that ‘marriage’ should only be allowed between a man and a woman, because it is indeed a ‘religious’ term and ceremony.
I fail to see why a Civil Union cannot be the answer to this ‘argument’ if legal equality is truly what is desired.
Why must the ‘religious factor’ be pushed to the forefront? At this point in time it is hard to see which side (gay or straight) is doing the most ‘pushing’ when it comes to religion and the term ‘marriage’.
At least we should find out if we (society) are at odds because of homophobia, and just using the religious’ term’ of marriage as an excuse, or if indeed we (society) are accepting of the gay community.
In either case, a Civil Union could/would/should/ suffice.

Separation of Church and State comes to mind…..

Posted by: bertzel | August 6, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

This is hypocrisy at it's worst. The repugs/teabaggers want the government out of our lives, but look at their reaction when a judge rules, “Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” They claim they want a limited government so they can do whatever THEY want, but they want a fascist dictatorship when it comes to what OTHER people want. Given their hypocrisy/dishonesty/incoherence on every other issue, we can't even claim to be surprised.

Posted by: queraro1 | August 6, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Words almost fail me but, here goes. Why is the gay thing such a left wing issue? And why do gays make such a hoo-hah song and dance about their persuasion? I have no real feelings either way, although I do favor marriage as being between a man and a woman - maybe that's because I'm straight. But it's the gays' way of whooping and a hollering and their extravagant way of celebrating that really gets to me. Have a great weekend!

Posted by: jrwbrit1 | August 6, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

will 12 said: I wish the govt had no business in marriage, period. Let churches decide who can get married and who can't.

Civil unions should be the only gov't recognized social partnership between two people.

I feel exactly the opposite. Any couple should be able to go to the government and be issued a marriage license. Receipt of the license means a couple is in fact married in the eyes of the state. What couples choose to do afterwards would be up to them. Some might choose to hold a ceremony in a religious setting. Others might have a ceremony of their own design in a national park, or an a beach in Hawaii. Still others might invite a few friends over and have a small party to celebrate. Marriage, though, would be conferred by the state. Churches could host events (call them weddings, call then whatever) celebrating the event, but they would be out of the business of conferring a legal status on someone.

Posted by: BwanaDik | August 6, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

As usual, Tommy boy, you and all the rest of your nitwit lib posters miss the entire point to this absurdity. This is just the latest example of the dismantling of our Constitutional system, and the slow march to tyranical autocratic rule by fiat.

This "judge" is nothing more than a political activist, manufacturing the most contorted, illogical, and absurd rationalizations to support his PERSONAL agenda. Like pretty much everything the left is advocating... since you can't get it done or "win" the intellectual argument through the democratic process, have some leftist judge pronounce that black is white and up is down. To hell with the will of the people, to hell with the rule of law, to hell with the Constitution. We're marching on a very dangerous path.

Just so we all know too, there are civil unions in California already which have addressed many of the major points of contention that gays had.... but that still wasn't good enough... just had to stick a finger in the eye of the vast majority of Californians and destroy another tradition. That's really what this is ALL about, now isn't it??

Just wait until some judge decides that religious freedom requires Shiria law compliance.... know what the attitude is towards gays (and women) in the Islamic world??? Beware of unintended consequences.

Posted by: Shrimper | August 6, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

I can't resist rubbing Conservative noses in this one.

Hey, right-wingers, you have Reagan, Meese, and Bush to thank for fighting to seat Judge Vaughn Walker on the federal bench in the first place--against opposition from Democrats and their Lefty friends. The NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination.

But, ultimately, they failed.

Ha Ha Ha. Read all about it here:


Ha Ha Ha.

Posted by: HumanistPatriot | August 6, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

This issue is so WEIRD. Aside from the bigotry of homophobia, why should anyone care whether or not gays can marry? What possible effect can anyone's gay marriage have on anyone else's marriage, gay or straight?

But doesn't opposition to gay marriage, by clear and unavoidable inference, mean support for homosexual extramarital sex? I mean, it would be pretty strange to expect all gays to be celibate all their lives, and from the annals of the Catholic church we find out what that sort of thing that kind of thinking leads to.

But the strangest thing about any appeal of this judge's (a Reagan appointee, by the way) ruling is the concept of "standing." It seems to me that only the state of California itself has any standing to appeal this ruling to any higher court, as only it suffers any effect from the ruling in that it was a law of California that was voided by it. I cannot imagine any entity like the Mormons (whose money paid to get Prop 8 passed in the first place) or any of the slavering anti-gay bloviators being able to demonstrate any kind of harm that might give them legal standing to request an appeal.

Now if some judge could just go after Proposition 13, maybe California could get back on its feet.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | August 6, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

The legal arguments for those opposed to gay marriage are the same made by the opponents in Loving vs Virginia which went to the Supreme Court concerning interracial marriage. That's why you have conservatives like Ted Olsen supporting the concept despite his despicable activities in the Arkansas Project.
The biblical arguments sound very much like thosed made to support slavery and segregation.

And for alutz, any opinion will seem biased to someone else. That's why it's an opinion. For the right though we have "dogma" which is an excuse not to think for yourself.

Posted by: roscym1 | August 6, 2010 7:15 AM | Report abuse

I liked Tom better when he just did the cartoons... not now when he publishes his own biased mini-opinion column with it each day.

Posted by: alutz08 | August 6, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

I do not understand those who say the govt should not have business in marriage, it should be the church. If this is the case, why when it comes the time of divorce the govt gets involved and the church is left aside!

Posted by: fridamulindayahoocouk | August 6, 2010 3:25 AM | Report abuse

Suck it up, right, the 2nd amendment isn't the only thing in the Constitution.

So is freedom of religion (equals freedom FROM religion, or even the right of gay people to form their own) and EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.

Posted by: moore_te | August 6, 2010 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Big surprise that Toles is for homosexual "marriages." So was the judge and we know what he is!

A constitutional convention will right a lot of wrongs, believe that girly boys. :)

Posted by: numbersch13 | August 5, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

You may be right so why do you want to take peoples guns, SUVs and riding lawn mowers away?

Posted by: jornolibist | August 5, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I wish the govt had no business in marriage, period. Let churches decide who can get married and who can't.

Civil unions should be the only gov't recognized social partnership between two people.

Of course, if marriage gets opened up to any two individuals who wish to marry, the point is moot.

I always wondered if the perfect salesman could sell "abolish the gov't control of marriage" by selling it to the religious right as "Finally, the church will decide who can and cannot get married" and selling it to the left as a means to equal social partnerships for all.

Posted by: will12 | August 5, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Fearless Leader has a problem though. President Obama agreed with civil unions but was against gay marriage. Wellllllllll?

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 5, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The right never seem to tire of being on the wrong side of history.

Posted by: Kevin71707 | August 5, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The conclusion of Loving vs Virginia:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

There were a lot of people, not that long ago, that thought blacks and whites shouldn't marry. It was against God's will, it was Not Right, and my God, think of those poor children!

The Supreme Court got it right 50 years ago: marrying the person you want to marry is a right. And sex is as "unsupportable a basis" as race. After all, this isn't about being homosexual - a lesbian could marry a gay man with no problem - this is about the sex of the 2nd spouse. We accept that discriminating on the basis of sex is wrong in pretty much all other cases, so why is it okay here...when the 2nd spouse's sex matters to only one person - the 1st spouse?

Posted by: anonymice | August 5, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"Every once in a while, a judicial decision gets it right in a way that makes it all so obvious."

You were talking about McDonald v Chicago, right Tommy ol boy?

Posted by: SharpshootingPugilist | August 5, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

As long as this issue remains alive, Republicans succeed, because it galvanizes many votes for their party. Sad, foolish one-issue voters, who unwittingly help Republicans keep all the money.

Posted by: kilroy2 | August 5, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Well put Tom. Ignore the haters.

Posted by: simpleton1 | August 5, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

then would you find agreement with the term
civil union??

Is it Friday already?
Wow time flies..

Posted by: bertzel | August 5, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"Same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is an absurdity.

Posted by: DirtFarmer1 | August 5, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company