There is a major difference though in that Obama uses the sentence "equal rights under the law" which is dog whistle politics. That's the exact wording gay rights orgs uses to ask for marriage rights.
So while their position is the same, he is hinting at something there. Nothing he will ever elaborate on for obvious reasons but still ...

Posted at May 15, 2008 9:49 PM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions

Another fun tidbit about the canard that "unelected judges make the law" is that while they are picked by the governor, CA Supreme Court Justices are subject to popular confirmation after a first fixed term.
All the judges that voted in favor have been reelected with more than 70% of the votes.

Posted at May 15, 2008 8:10 PM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions

The main difference is I love the man but on the substance of the issue I agree with you, and I am actually quite certain so does he. But politics is a dirty business (even for the hopemonger).

Posted at May 15, 2008 7:31 PM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions

That Democratic candidates are cowardly on the issue - including Obama - is undeniable and unfortunate.

In the America we live in, it is also a necessity.
Talk to me in 2020 and if the Democratic candidates still spout that BS, I will be with you.
It is one thing to be hopeful about what one can accomplish. It is another one to be foolish.

I hate having to defend Obama on that issue because I disagree with him but trust me that he is going as far as any politician willing to stay electable can go. And actually I thought that statement he put out went a little bit further I would have thought.

Posted at May 15, 2008 7:19 PM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions

But polls show a majority of Californians now in favor of gay marriage and we have had very generous civil unions for years. Once again, CA Constitution is different from the US Constitution and Ca public opinion is different from US public opinion. Which is why the national pols getting involved in this are idiots. They have no idea what they talking about.

Posted at May 15, 2008 7:14 PM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions

I have not read the judgement and tend to trust him but I would agree with them more if they followed your logic than his. I think this is one for the lawyers to decipher.

Here is another take closer to yours:

That’s actually the key ruling here: The court holds on page 95 that because sexual orientation is (1) immutable, (2) unrelated to one’s ability to function in society, and (3) a target of prejudice, it should be treated as a “suspect classification” for purposes of the state constitution’s equal protection clause. Once it’s deemed a suspect classification then the state needs a very compelling reason to justify discriminating on the basis of it

Posted at May 15, 2008 7:09 PM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions

You are misrepresenting Schwarzenegger's position actually.
He said he vetoed the laws because he wanted the Supreme Court to be the one to decide. He said - and confirmed it today - that if the Supreme Court held that the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, he would stand by that decision and actively campaign against any constitutional amendment trying to deny us that right retroactively.
He will campaign against the November amendment, his spokesperson confirmed.

Posted at May 15, 2008 7:01 PM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions

Hillary says the exact same thing about not standing for gay marriage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huRVrckY8

Enough said.

Posted at May 15, 2008 6:58 PM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions

Obama's stance on gay issues actually goes further than HRC's.
Their platform is virtually identical except that Obama wants to repeal DOMA in its entirety while HRC wants to keep the proviso that allows states to not recognize other states' same sex marriage.

Posted at May 15, 2008 6:56 PM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions

Glenn Greenwald explains it :

(4) The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provides that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.

Posted at May 15, 2008 6:54 PM in response to Obama Reaffirms Support For Same-Sex Unions