"Should the "ProFamily" members of our society start picketing the capitol, the courts, etc?" ...No, you should probably put up more reader boards that say: "America we have a Muslim president. This is a sin against the Lord"

To save a lot of posts, you can go to http://www.volokh.com/posts/1226036505.shtml and see both sides of the legal argument.

One can observe that those promoting the constitutionality of Prop 8 are operating on sound legal basis that does not require one to create imaginary "fundamental constitutional rights" and the other relies upon these "fundamental constitutional rights" that are odd in their specific nature.

The "right to marry anyone you wish" is a hard one to demonstrating as being fundamental given the fact that we currently restrict polygamy and incest. How can one claim its fundamental, but restrict some people from doing it?

If they try to argue this fundamental right is obviously limited to two people, one can ask "Why"? and not receive an answer because there is no such thing.

The "fundamental right" is a red herring, but it is designed to give the court an out. They, by a slim majority imagined up this fundamental right, therefore they only have to stick to it.

The Naysayers claim that the right for homosexuals to marry is being "removed" from the constitution, yet this is strictly imaginary. It never existed. Marriage has been assumed for the entire history of our state and our nation as between a man and a woman. The constitution did not define it only because there was no need. Only when the courts overturned the will of the people did it become necessary to put it in writing.

What is happening is the equivalent of redefining day and night. "Day is when the sun is down and the stars and moon appear.... because we say so!" It would be nice if the impact of such a change was only semantic, but it has much larger and more dangerous impacts upon our society than simply redefining the word.

The way to solve this issue is to amend the constitution to allow homosexuals to marry, not to use rogue justices in the court and their imaginary rights. A court that can whimsically create rights, can take them away with just as much ease. We should hold the courts to their constitutional responsiblity. Follow the constitution and stop legislating from the bench!

Rolandmc: You are not persuading anyone with the vitriolic "You are a hateful bigot if you disagree with me" angle.

This is not about imposing a particular religious perspective, it is about a social policy and the people of this nation are still free to define the things they consider a positive social value, and a negative social value.

There is a very big difference between bigottry and discrimantion, and discrimantion is not always a bad thing. We discrimate every day, both personally, and as a society. It is politically correct to the extreme to ask that we equate those who discriminate against gay marriage to a civil rights issue. I grow tired of the politically correct police.

"hateful bigot" your words, not mine. Nor am I trying to persuade. I'm just expressing an opinion. That opinion being this is a particular religious perspective. I don't believe anyone here will persuade anyone any differently with any acidic remarks - I acknowledge using sarcasm...but their is a difference. I do need to be careful with sarcasm though, understanding it's root comes from the Greek to "tear the flesh"...it can be misconstrued as nonconstructive to a rational debate.

Might I suggest you look at your own suggestion for a while...YOU WON - GET OVER IT.

A law is not valid until it is suported by the courts. Did the people that wrote Proposition #8 read the Constitution of the United States? Per the opeinions supported by the court: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Lets talk about those "crooked judges". Chief Justice Ron George was first appointed to the trial court by Governor Ronald Reagan, and ultimately apointed as Chief Justice by Governor Pete Wilson. Justice Chin was first appointed to the Court of Appeal by Governor Deukmajian, then to the Supreme court by Governor Wilson. Justice Baxter was appointed by Governor Pete Wilson. Justice Moreno's first trial court appointment was by Deukmajian, but his appointment to the Supreme Court was by Governor Davis. Jusice Kennard was appointed by Deukmajian. Justice Werdegar was appointed by Governor Wilson. Justice Corrigan was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

So of these 7 "crooked judges", 6 were appointed to the Supreme Court by Republican gevernors. The only justice appointed by a Democrat, Moreno, was first appointed to the trial court by a Republican.

Is it just possible that these justices are thoughtful, conscientious students of the law, capable of putting aside their personal political and social beliefs in making important decisions involving fundamental human rights?

rat_stink: There is NOTHING in Rolandmac's post that even implies the ""You are a hateful bigot if you disagree with me" angle". What an idiot...

Despite the CBS TV disclaimer, R_T doesn't seem to realize the Judge Judy comedy courtroom show is fake. Yes kiddies, it's as make-believe as WWF SmackDown! JJ is produced by Big Ticket Productions which also does Judge Joe Brown (in an adjoining studio), as well as Moesha and its spin-off, The Parkers. Judy Sheindlin used to be a family court arbitrator in Manhattan. Ironically, she's been married three times. After an LA Times article described her reputation for rude mouthy-ness, she was offered a new CBS/Paramount "reality-based" TV show with a courtroom theme, a faux judge, actors and a paid audience.

R_T: Will they still be defiant, crooked judges fabricating false opinions if they rule in favor of upholding a gay marriage ban?

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

• Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

• Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

• Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

• Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

• Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

• Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

(source: U.S. Department of State: "Principles of Democracy.")

Prop 8 is discriminatory - in violation of the United States Constitution - and it will eventually be overturned. Prop 8 will merely hasten the day when gay marriage will be legal across the United States. This is known as unexpected consequences for you Prop 8 supporters out there.

Skeptic, your well written last post has many good points, (and thus, I suspect its plagiarized) however, this idea that because someone wants to have homosexual relations with somebody, and even live with them, means that society is obligated to adopt that relationship under the term "marriage" is fallacious.

The civil right argument has been beaten to a pulp. You cannot assert a civil right to engage in any form of behavior you wish. There is no proof that someone is born to have gay sex. They might be born with a particular attraction, nobody knows, but if we start endorsing every form of attraction anyone might have, the list would have to grow beyond measure.

We currently restrict people under 18 from voting. Is that a violation of the 14th amendment?

We currently restrict people who are blood-related from marrying, is that a violation of the 14th amendment?

We currently restrict people who have committed felonies from voting, is that a violation of the 14th amendment?

Clearly, there is demonstrated precedent that society has the right, even the obligation to establish standards of behavior and restrict some, and endorse others. There is no demonstrable justification for endorsing homosexual relationships on an equivalent basis with marriage. We can provide equal opportunities, legal structures, and benefits all through statutory constructs *IF WE WANT TO* but that does not mean we are obligated to.

Personally, I do not support the concept of civil unions, but I do support domestic partnership and even believe it should be allowed between multiple participants. In the latter case, the state is only recognizing the right of people to engage in a contract with each other.

I wish the state made marriage a more secure and protected status. For example, get rid of no-fault divorce. If two people agree to spend their life together and love and care for each other, and remain monogamous, and one decides not to fulfill that contract, they should have a penalty. Marriage should be harder to enter, and harder to exit.

It was social liberals that made marriage easy and look what it has done to the family. Opening marriage to homosexuals will only destroy the remnants of a civil structure we now are passing down to our children.

Miuwtant: Prop8 was not "unexpected". It was part of a devious legal strategy. Come on, be honest about it. You know that Gavin was working with Jerry and the gang of 4.

gulliver;

Reagan, a Republican appointed good and bad judges. Reagan was a conservative, but his criteria for appointing a judge in 1968 is not an indicator of how that person is going to act in 2008.

Wilson, barely a Republican, was not known for his sterling credentials as a Republican let alone a conservative. Your argument that because a Republican put someone on the court, they must be conservative is laughable. If you were not making that point, then you were being deceptive.

Dukmajian, a Republican, appointed good and bad judges. There is a HUGE difference between appointing a judge to a district court, and putting them on the Supreme Court.

Face it, the four that made up this civil right were doing so in total contravention to rational thinking. The minority did not just disagree with them. The minority was LIVID at the usurpation of power, and the fabrication of a civil right to marry anyone you wish. You really do have to make things up to justify the rationale they fabricated.

This is so simple. Just call it something else. I really don't care if the gay population creates a union with all of the same rights, responsibilities and privileges that come with a marriage between a man and a woman.

That said, I will never be able to accept that two people of the same sex have the same thing that my wife and I have had for nearly thirty years and I prefer that the definition of the word associated with our union not be altered. I'm sorry, but my mind will not be changed.

If you would just make up another name for the union instead of trying to change the meaning of a tradition that has existed for thousands of years, you may get the support you need to succeed.

Found the following, this is why there is no honest debate

Rod Dreher's column:

Bigots are by definition people whose prejudices are irrational. Bigots are moral cretins who can't be talked to, only coerced. One is under no obligation to compromise with a bigot, only to smash him. . . . .

That's what we're seeing now in California. How are defenders of traditional marriage supposed to have reasoned discourse with people who insist that there is nothing to talk about except the terms of our surrender?

How did Rat_Tinker manage to get through that without mentioning barnyard animals ? This has to be lifted from another source.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country that was an extension of the Vatican, the government would be run by a Cardinal who in turn answered and got his direction from the Pope. As a gesture of good will the Vatican would allow the Mormon church to operate in the Country although Masons would not. Under this blessed form of government gays would be banished and either jailed for their sins or forced into exile, in order to appease the Mormons, blacks once again would be considered unworthy and thus not allowed to join any religion unless approved for those that are of lesser stature. All interracial marriages would be annulled immediately and women no longer will be allowed to vote. The Armed Forces will require a big cross on their uniforms and will start training to conduct crusades like in the old days, chastity belts would be optional though, the priests must have some form of entertainment while the menfolk are wiping out those pesky Muslims. Our borders will be closed to all immediately, any foreigners will be required to show their papers to the religious police and their church attendance card must be kept up to date and show that perfect attendance has been maintained, jail being the punishment for failing to do so.

Oh what a great world or at least a country this would become. Look at all the hate we could have without fear of criticism, banishment of those that don't agree 100% with the bible, book of mormon, etc. Jews tend to be on the liberal side so they will not be allowed to participate in the government but may keep their synagogues open.

Ahh the good old days, where did they go, why did we let them take our freedom away.

Ok, time to wake up from that dream. Obama has been elected and he's going to guide our country with the help of a lot of Clinton's former staffers, California is going to raise every tax known to man, Prop 8 will be declared unconstitutional and life will go on without any harm to anyone.

OK, I'll be the first to admit that this was a very stupid post, it was meant to illustrate the idiocy that has transpired on this issue and the insistence of some people who try to impose their religious beliefs upon the rest of the population and worse yet, try to bring religious beliefs into the Constitution.

Have a great day.

Rod Dreher is as conservative as it gets; he's a self-described "practicing Christian and political conservative."

But Rod Dreher made an extraordinary confession on NPR (All Things Considered, January 11, 2007)

"As I sat in my office last night watching President Bush deliver his big speech, I seethed over the waste, the folly, the stupidity of this war. I had a heretical thought for a conservative - that I have got to teach my kids that they must never, ever take Presidents and Generals at their word - that their government will send them to kill and die for noble-sounding rot - that they have to question authority. On the walk to the parking garage, it hit me. Hadn't the hippies tried to tell my generation that? Why had we scorned them so blithely?" Dreher’s is the voice of a man who realizes he has been betrayed.

The problem is that his understanding of politics remained childish. It never matured. He seems to have retained a child’s simple faith that taught him Democrats (and liberals) are “bad” and Republicans (and conservatives) are “good,” so one does not have to think to know who’s right or wrong.

In their minds, conservatives have an inherent virtue that keeps them on the side of God and the angels. What passes for “critical analysis” among wingers is most often just the unconscious jerking of their knees in support of their faith.

Timeslip is quoting THAT Rod Dreher?

Let me get this straight:

The premise is that it is perfectly legitimate for millions of dollars of out-of-state religous fanatic money to come here and tip a vote so that our state constitution is modified...but not legitimate for our state supreme court to review and rule on legal and constitutional matters brought before it.

There is a simple remedy if you don't like the judges: impeachment. Can't get impeachment through a Democratic state legislature, you whine? Elect more Republicans. Can't do that because of changing attitudes and demographics, you whine? Simple: accept facts like a grown up, or move.

Nash - You also have to appreciate the supreme irony that a Utah-based superstition composed of deluded incestuous polygamists gets to define "marriage" in California's secular constitution.