The crux of the appeals to the CA Supreme Court is that there are 2 ways to change the state Constitution. By amendment and by revision. Amendment is reserved for minor things such as giving chickens the right to live in roomy accomodations.:) A constitutional revision is for issues of greater import such as taking away the constitutinal rights of one group exclusively. Please remember the Supreme court gave us the right to marry in June. And Prop 8 stripped that right. This obviously falls in the latter category. Constitutional revisions must first go through the legislature and pass with a super majority. That’s not going to happen – after all this legislature twice past legislation allowing same sex mariage, only to be vetoed by the Governor, who as of late seems to have become enlightened. If the Supreme Court invalidates Prop 8, whick I think they will, game over – we win. Read the original decision. They give their hand away when speaking of the possibility of Prop 8 passing.

This wrong will be righted soon enough. The Supreme Court of CA will overturn Prop 8, trust me. Read the original decision declaring the denial of same sex marriage unconstitutional. It speaks to much more than just marriage. It is sublime in it’s eloquence. And they quite directly address the court’s position if Prop 8 were to pass.

I don’t live in West Hollywood nor Silver Lake, nor San Francisco.

My husband and I, (I love the sound of that) live in South Pasadena, about 7 miles North of Downtown Los Angeles. This town voted 65% NO, to 35% YES on Prop 8.

We can walk down the streets holding hands and no one blinks an eye. Everyone says hello. Who lives here? Mostly straight families with lots of children.

We don’t live in your reality and never will so we don’t have to suck it up. All we have to do is work a little harder. Victory will be ours. We will not accept defeat.

Well, I think that’s highly dramatic. The courts are NEVER the final arbitrators. Constitutions can be amended or revised if enough people want it to be. Judges have to follow the constitution. They are not kings, afterall.

There’s no doubt that gay couples will eventually be able to marry across the US, and have Federal recognition. It might be another 30 years, it could be much sooner, but it’ll happen. The 8 fight is offensive because it’s fighting to justify something we already had. If the Court upholds 8, I look forward to every faction coming out from under the rocks and causing all the chaos they can in the Golden State. I may be in a shitty flyover state, but at least I already knew where I stood. Guess we’re not such backward hicks are we now, huh West Hollywood and Silverlake? Welcome to our reality, and learn how to suck it up. Though I hate 8, there is that part of me that’s kinda glad that oh-so-self-righteous California has proven itself just as bigoted as Ohio or Virginia.

If the judges are not the final arbiters of a situation (in this case, a very bad decision by the people), then there will always be back and forth resolutions to add and remove some perhaps even more devastating decision.

The court must maintain its hold on its finality of a decision, else they are useless, and have been castrated to be nothing, except maybe a rubber stamp to the legislature and eventually, the people.

Our republic is doomed if they do not rule to keep their power and against the people’s evil vote. How else can a “tyranny of the majority” be abbreviated if not by some sane judges?

If you look at the more detailed analysis of this from the San Francisco Chronicle, the fact that the lone vote AGAINST hearing this challenge came from one of the “gang of four” that legalized same-sex marriage in the first place is a rather ominous sign as well.

I think it maybe time to forget about California and move this fight to the Northeast, where the political climate is more receptive and there are no voter initiated referendums (i.e. ballot measures must be approved by the legislature first).