Well, one could argue that the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause might have covered it. They chose not to follow this sort strategy but instead passed it in a way that built national consensus.

Karl then asks “Are you suggesting the gay community should start working on an amendment to the US Constitution stating that marriage is a right and no state may ordain otherwise?”

That would certainly be the best solution. When such an amendment passes, the hearts and minds of the country will have changed and it won’t be necessary for a few judges to ram the decision down the population’s throat. Problem solved. It could also be limited in a way that eliminated the slippery slope arguments of polygamy, bestiality, incest, etc.

Step one is to create another initiative to repeal Prop 8 so marriage in California be a reality and permanent. Once it passes, by definition, gay marriage will be accepted in California.

jeeze people, we’re only talking about changing the mind of 2% of voting public.

Are you suggesting the gay community should start working on an amendment to the US Constitution stating that marriage is a right and no state may ordain otherwise?

Neil: In the State of California, marriage is a fundamental right, per the ruling given last summer. That does not apply elsewhere in the US, but it is true within the State of California.

It was the 19th amendment to the US constitution that gave women suffrage. They didn’t try to get a judges to impose it on the population. That’s how its supposed to be done, legislatively.

MARRIAGE IS A SECULAR CONTRACT. ALL PEOPLE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE CONTRACTS IN THE UNITED STATES.

If we also use the secular argument “Marriage is a contract, and the people cannot take away the right to contract from anyone” because it is protected by the US Constitution, and further it has been upheld by the US Supreme Court for 200 years, and ruled a basic right of all people in the US to make contracts.

The “marriage contract” is enshrined in the laws to simply make it a simple matter to wed, and to have some semblance order. If it is not a contract, then why are “prenuptial agreements” even legal and why do divorce agreements have to be made by the courts? They are modifications to the basic secular contract enacted into law.

If we do this, then the religious idiots and the evil bigots cannot possibly have a leg to stand on. And any such challenge to marriage contract will fail miserably.

Further, “HOLY MATRIMONY” IS NOT MARRIAGE. The two are separate, and I for one do not want some “holier than thou, self appointed religious cleric” to conduct my state-sanctioned, secular marriage ceremony.

I hope the California S.C. finds a legal reason to stop Prop 8, but, short of that, the hope of California lies in either the U.S. Supreme Court or in an initiative to overturn Prop 8 by the people of California.

And bonus points for remembering Mildred’s first name!