Slammer!

Updated I keep saying I'm trying to, like the man said, "keep hope alive." It's hope that gives us the strength to carry on and the courage to go beyond what we otherwise think we can. So good news is something to be welcomed. And here is a bit of such news, from AP for Monday:

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to the only state that allows gay marriages, declining to hear an appeal aimed at overturning the Massachusetts law that prompted a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex unions.

The decision ended the legal fight over a 4-3 Massachusetts high court ruling last November giving gay couples the right to marry. ...

Liberty Counsel, the Florida-based conservative group that filed the challenge to the Massachusetts law, argued the state Supreme Court ruling violated the U.S. Constitution because state judges had made a decision more properly decided by elected legislatures.

The high court rejected the appeal without comment.

Yes!

Notice it wasn't even a group of Massachusetts residents but a bunch of out-of-staters coming in and - doggone it all! - trying to tell the people of Massachusetts what to do! Outside agitators! Interfering with our state's rights, our state legal process, our state constitution! Who do they think they are, messing with our local way of life?

Apparently, in the minds of conservatives "states' rights" is a rather elastic concept that often expands in areas such as gun control, environmental protection, labor organizing, and civil rights but contracts in areas such as gay marriage.

There is still a long battle ahead.

Gay marriage is opposed by a majority of Americans, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. The poll taken Nov. 19-21 found that 61 percent oppose gay marriage and 35 percent support it.

People are about evenly divided on whether gays should be allowed to form civil unions, which would give them many of the same legal rights as marriage, other polls have found.

An even split on "civil unions" and over 1/3 supporting marriage. How long ago would those numbers have seemed impossibly out of reach?

Footnote: As could be predicted, the Shrub team fell all over itself with brainless pandering.

"Activist judges are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of society, and the people's voice is not being heard in this process," said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan. "That's why the president is committed to moving forward with Congress on a constitutional amendment that would protect the sanctity of marriage."

"Uh, excuse me, Scotty," someone damn well should have asked, "but could you explain to us how the president concluded that people wanting to get married undermines marriage?"

Update: I was wrong about something: There were some people in Massachusetts involved in the suit. Ten members of the 159-seat State House of Representatives and one of the 40 members of the State Senate signed on to the suit. May their political careers rot.