These judges are, hopefully, more courageous than letting the threat of recall sway what they know to be the correct result: The majority cannot be permitted to vote on minorities’ fundamental rights. This isn’t a “gay” issue. This is an issue that affects ALL minorities. If Prop. 8 is valid, what’s next? Prop. 9 is an amendment to prohibit immigrants from having access to social services. Prop. 10 is an amendment to preclude women who have ever had a divorce from marrying, etc.

This should be an easy case. People can take issue with the Cal. Supremes’ initial decision to get involved – to decide that same-sex couples had the right to marry. But that genie is already out of the bottle. Now, the question is much more basic: Can the majority strip rights from minorities. The answer is easy: NO.

There is a time in all our lives when we are called upon to stand up for what is right. These justices are in such a position. It is better to pray that they have enough personal strength and to send them some positive vibes then it is to be negative about the outcome.

You kind of remind me of my neighbors who said there was no way Obama could win because he was part AA.

Try imagining what is possible and believe it can happen…and it will.

But the CA legislature voted in favor of gay marriage. There is a big difference between lawmaking by a deliberative legislative body, in which representatives are tasked to represent the greatest good for greatest number the people, and lawmaking by initiative, which could be termed “mob rule” or “tyranny by the majority”. In Massachusetts, marriage equality was saved by a 4 year deliberative process in the legislature. In fact, at the end, many of our legislators voted for marriage equality in order to prevent the kind of media free-for-all generated by a referendum. Perhaps the excess reliance on initiatives in California is to blame for loss of marriage equality there.

“You cannot enter into a civil contract, like everyone else, because it has the same name as a ceremony in my church, for which you would be ineligible, if you were a member, which you are not.”

In other words, it doesn’t make sense.

It not only violates the equal-protection clause of the California constitution, it also violates the equal-protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution, which explicitly regulates the states’ laws. True, the judges on the California Supreme Court are not federal judges and cannot adjudicate federal laws, but as residents of the US, they can’t violate them, either. That means they have to make a good faith effort to make a decision that is not illegal on the federal level.

If the judges fear the electorate, then they are not fit to be judges anyway.

All this proves is that the proposition process in California is not a tool of democracy, but of mob rule.

“Huge outrage will be directed at the courts, not just by conservatives, but by all citizens who would rather see law made in the legislature, and not in the courtroom.”

Excuse me, but didn’t the california legislature vote FOR gay marriage not ONCE but TWICE? And didn’t AhHHHHNOLD veto it not ONCE but TWICE????

Seems to me that the legislature has done it’s part already and been rebuffed. The COURT is the proper plce for this to be decided and their May 2008 ruling makes plain and clear that any attempt to pass a majority-rule proposition to eliminate equal rights for gays would be rejected – again.