Hmmm. If you don't think this is the beginning of the end...

One could ask the same question of the presidential election, I suspect.

So what is the point of voting in the state of California if those who are opposed to the result of the vote can just ask the courts to overturn the will of the voters?

Are you serious?

What's the point of passing legislation if those who are opposed to the result can just ask the courts to overturn it? What's the point of lower courts making a ruling if those who are opposed to the result can just ask the higher courts to overturn it? What's the point of any court making a ruling if those who are opposed to the results can just ask the legislature to overturn it? What's the point of the SCOTUS making a ruling if those who are opposed to it can just ask Congress to overrule it?

It's called "the American process", Kim. Which you seem to support... right up until the point when your desired result is reached. After that, not so much, eh?

So, I take it that Mormons are 52% of California's population? What is the fixation on the Mormons?

Here is another example of those "crazy activist judges":

"In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. Opponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision."

Should that vote have stood?

I think it's great that they can, and are, appealing to the courts. It is their right, and it is also one of the reasons we have courts. 3 branches, each with a cautious eye on the others.
However, the tantrums I cannot abide. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to take the higher road, not act like emotional thugish cowards.

If you have any grade schoolers around they may have a US government textbook that you could read to get a basic understanding of how our government works.

Didya know there are three branches, by golly?

This post is so freaking funny. AND to quote Michelle Malkin just keeps the laughs going. Thanks for making a long day end on a good note.

I think most are missing the point. TWICE a majority has said that "Marriage" is between a man and a woman. Nothing about repealing anyone's rights. Gays have civil unions in Kalifornia which give them the same rights as married couples.

They are not satisfied with that. They want "marriage" to apply to them as well. The minority that preaches 'diversity' and 'tolerance' has shown itself to be anything but.

If the court does overturn Prop 8, will everyone in Kalifornia be required to swear allegiance to the new meaning? Far as I'm concerned, a gay couple says 'we're married', I'll reply, "No, you're not".

What are you going to do then, call me a homophobe? Bigot? Neanderthal? Knuckle- dragger?

Kim,

Good post. But you're missing a little of the background action here in crazy California.

The voters voted several years ago to ban Gay Marriages (proposition 22 in 2000). Earlier this year, the Mayor of San Francisco decided he didn't like that law, and started ordered his city clerk to allow gay marriages. This led to the court challenge where our robed masters overthrew the will of the people, and overturned proposition 22.

This ruling was expected and proposition 8 was already in the works as a constitutional amendment.

It's no surprise to anyone in California that the state Supreme Court is going to take another whack at it.

In addition to the violence by opponents of proposition 8, don't forget the trolling of campaign finance donations to target people who donated to supporting proposition 8.

If the republicans did the same thing, the news media would be screaming MCCARTHYISM at the top of their lungs. But when it's those wonderful liberals doing it, it seems to be OK.

I'm sure Brian and other liberal trolls can justify the actions of the lunatic left, looking forward to seeing it. As for the rest of the country, be prepared, this is what it looks like when you have Democrats running everything.

(Yes, yes, I know Arnold is technically a republican, but it's hard to get more of a RINO than him).

So what is the point of voting in the state of California if those who are opposed to the result of the vote can just ask the courts to overturn the will of the voters?

Perhaps there is no point to voting in California because the Legal Profession needs to maintain their high judical standards?

Really, really, really small minds. Let's all agree that the "insight" expressed here is the truth. Move on folks.

You preach Hate. Be proud just like those that repressed blacks. Jesus will love you more, if you will hate more.

Oh, I misspoke, Jesus doesn't matter when you are so damn right.

:-)

A lot of people are missing the point that this is an amendment to the state constitution, not a law. Justices can, and should, rule on the constitutionality of a law, but setting judges up to use the current constitution to veto amendments to the constitution sets judges up as dictators, not as a check or balance.

i do think its pretty funny how the polygamists want to "protect" marriage

i say lets overturn tax exemption for all religions

Peabody, That is exactly what this is about. Not Gay rights, not marriage. It's about having power over the religious establishments in this country. The reason proposition 8 was put forward was so that churches can not be FORCED into marrying someone when they don't believe that what they are doing is right. The GLBT population wants to be able to force christian churches to HAVE to marry them, or face a lawsuit and losing tax exempt status due to their "rights violations". If it were about equal rights, then legally, civil unions provide that. This is about forcing churches to accept that the GLBT lifestyle is legally and morally o.k., even if the bible or book of mormon says otherwise. There are churches that provide services for GLBT couples, where they can say their vows and have their civil union blessed, so why must it be forced on others by the court? Oh, and see comment #13 for a good explanation of why legislating from the bench is a bad idea.

so chad - in states where it has been legal, including california for extended periods of time, where are the cases of churches being forced to marry gays, or facing the lawsuits?

i personally havent heard of this and i dont think it will materialize since no church can prevent gays from marrying as it is a CIVIL act before, if ever, it would be a religious one

What bothers me about all this is that California still provides benefits to gay couples as civil unions. I think thats the right course of action, but all this venom from the anti-8 folks is falsely claiming that rights have been taken away.

You don't need a law or a court decision to call your relationship a marriage. And having that law or court decision doesn't mean that those opposed will ever acknowledge it as a marriage in the first place.

The adult thing to do would be to continue the civil unions, and then refer to themselves as married couples.

john - my understanding is that civil unions have some important limitations over marriage. the tax beaks arent there, and more importantly there no medical visitation rights. that would get really sticky if someone is dying and a disapproving family bars the partner from hospital visitations

but if theres anything this country should understand by now, its that "separate but equal" isnt equal. to the state, marriage is a legal contract, and gays can meet those legal terms as completely as heteros

If over 70% of the black vote supported Prop 8, how come the lily white gay protesters don't protest in front of The First AME church in Los Angeles' black community?

Bunch of Cowards!

Peabody,

In a state where gay marriages or even civil unions has not been legalized, people have been sued and have lost for choosing not to participate in commitment ceremonies.

I see no reason to believe that the same thing won't happen to ministers.

Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy and the deviants want the same protected rights of minorities. That is the sum total. But is you think homosexuality is a deviancy, then you are branded a bigot, predudices and a homophob that wants violence to be visited upon the deviants.

But as I was watching the homosexual protests on television, they were beating up on an old lady with a cross. HMM! Who are the violent bigots? ww

So they a bunch of lying mormons sent themselves a bunch of white powder and claimed gay people did it? What more proof do you need of their moral bankruptcy?

ohio - well, i googled unsuccesfully. i would have to read about it to have a better idea that it has actually happened

Efforts to secure same-sex marriage are NOT about equal rights. Though 'equal rights IS the bludgeon being used to attain the GLBT goal: SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE

It will be some time before ministers and churches are sued for refusing to 'marry' gay and lesbian couples. But that day MUST eventually come because the goal of full social acceptance REQUIRES it.

The problem with using activist judges to impose same-sex marriage upon unwilling state populations is simple but subtle. Once judges rule that refusal to allow SSM is unconstitutional due to the equal protection clause...it LEGALLY opens the door to ANY other desired form of 'marriage'.

Polygamy, polyandry, 'plural' marriages of any desired configuration...incestuous marriages between consenting adults...

As 'far-fetched' as this may seem from a common sense perspective, LEGALLY there would remain no logical basis for excluding these 'marriages'.

Who may or may not marry would become ENTIRELY ARBITRARY and thus LEGALLY INDEFENSIBLE.

BECAUSE it would be DISCRIMINATORY TOO, based upon the activist ruling that the equal protection clause makes it unconstitutional to bar SSM.

The 'law' of unintended consequences is fully in effect on this one and the social implications for the very foundations of society are profound.

The next few generations are about to get a profound lesson in the unintended costs of generational hubris.

Interesting. Mike Tidmus has a better view of the Phyllis Burgess story. Malkin left out several details - http://www.miketidmus.com/blog/2008/11/17/the-elderly-woman-with-the-cross/

geoffrey - your slippery-slope argument doesnt hold water. same-sex marriages do not equate with incest or polygamy. marriage is about two people making a life commitment to each other, and granting each other preferential legal rights, and gender doesnt figure in to that

incest and polygamy involve choices. gays do not choose to be gay, so if you dont like it, take it up with mother nature....

peabody3000,

You've either missed my point or are purposely avoiding it.

In principle, you are entirely correct in all that you say in your response to me. Which in no way changes your response's irrelevance regarding my point.

The issue is NOT the genetic predisposition of gays, nor that incest and polygamy are choices, as indeed they are.

The ISSUE is the LEGAL WAY or PATH that SSM advocates are trying to achieve their primary goal: SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE.

Once the Ca SC rules that the banning of SSM violates the equal protection clause of the states constitution it inevitably opens the door to ANY other form of marriage that ANYONE may desire. It ALSO legally BARS any effort to establish the NEW definition of marriage as legally limited to two people. That standard will NOT be legally sustainable BECAUSE it is DISCRIMINATORY as well.

I am making a legal argument as to the inevitable LEGAL consequences of the Ca SC making that ruling.

If it is DISCRIMINATION to bar same sex marriage between two men or two women...HOW is it NOT ALSO discrimination to bar 3,4,5, etc. people of whatever sexual combination desired from getting married?

The ONLY objective standard for setting the 'line' for marriage is the biologically reproductive one of a man & a woman. Once we move away from that standard it becomes a subjective, arbitrary social whim.

That is fine if the people through the vote want it because its legally defensible...and in time, that can and will certainly happen because people under 50 are overwhelmingly supportive of SSM.

But once it is determined to be unconstitutionally discriminatory to limit marriage to a man and a woman...there remains no LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE BASIS for arbitrarily stating that banning plural marriage is NOT also discriminatory.

That is why I stated that my point is simple but subtle. It is also why the 'law' of unintended consequence applies if the courts are used to rule SSM to be constitutionally mandatory. The consequences I state then become legally INEVITABLE and CANNOT be stopped. And the consequences WILL be profound.

And that is WHY it is generational hubris for us to cavalierly overturn thousands of years of societal evolution, based upon our vaunted and 'evolved' 'higher understanding'.

I think it's time to focus on the more important sins society has turned a blind eye to. It's time to take a look at the Venal sins, the most dangerous to our souls. Too long have gluttons pushed us for acceptance into society. I propose prop 10 which shall remove fat people's right to marry.

Marriage is between a skinny man and a skinny woman. I don't want public schools teaching my children that fat lifestyles are acceptable.

Porn is between a 'skinny' man and a 'skinny' woman.

News flash! Public schools already teach children that fat lifestyles are unacceptable. Have you not heard of the 'obesity' epidemic and the efforts to ban 'junk' food from schools?

FWIW, the inability to respond substantively is revealed when you respond as you have done.

This will not be the first time California courts have decided that the voters too stupid to understand what they do. I don't understand why the people continue to tolerate it.
California had the best transportation system in the country, now its falling apart.
California once was in the most respected educational system in the country now it not in the top half.
Crime in California and the prison systems is a disaster waiting to happen.
This is only a few of the ills of a once great state and a very large reason for this is the liberal mindset. I think that California will eventually lead the US into a form of Elitist Socialism call it the "California Model"

geoffrey - my points were indeed aimed at the ones you have now restated

permitting same-sex marriage doesnt open the door to incestuous or polygamous ones since they dont compare. gay couples can legally satisfy the terms of marriage, the others cannot. incest is a fundamentally illegal activity. polygamy doesnt fit within the bounds of the basic precepts of the marriage contract. instead of 2 equal partners you wind up with unequal relationships that cant be addressed legislatively. gay marriage is just marriage

Actually, schools do teach you that's it's "acceptable" to be fat. They encourage children to exercise and live healthy, but if you are a fat child they still encourage high self esteem and to be ultimately comfortable with who you are.

It's amusing though that you think your response was substantive. Inferring that people will eventually be able to marry farm animals or other non-humans is very high logic indeed. That sentiment is certainly mirrored in most intellectual debates surrounding this topic. From the news hour with Jim Lehrer to the WSJ you'll find these "substantive" arguments being explored. Wait, did I say the WSJ? I think I meant Jerry Springer.

sigh,

I'm not speaking about "permitting" SSM. As in a vote of the people to 'broaden' the accepted definition of marriage.

I'm talking about activist judges ruling that SSM is constitutionally MANDATORY due to the equal protection clause.

Once they do THAT, the legal consequences are inevitable and unavoidable.

It appears that you disagree. Fine.

Should the Ca Supreme Court rule in that manner, as they most probably will, it will be interesting to see you attempt to hold the now fully subjective and thus arbitrary line at any two people and argue that it is NOT discrimination... you bigot! ;-)

"It's amusing though that you think your response was substantive. Inferring that people will eventually be able to marry farm animals or other non-humans is very high logic indeed."

No what's amusingly disingenuous is your attempt to discredit my LEGAL argument by stating that I 'inferred' that "farm animals and other non-humans" was an inevitable legal consequence...as I did no such thing.

While never once addressing the legal issue that I have raised.

I'm sorry, I've stopped listening to you. Why are you still talking?

I loved the comment that stated challenging election results in courts was part of the American process. Yeah, just send in legions of lawyers rather than troops like they do in Latin America and other banana republics.

Democracy rules here.

Just don't tell it to the politburo or our judges.