Discuss the California Supreme Court's decision to hear Proposition 8 challenges

Proposition 8, the initiative approved by California voters earlier this month to ban same-sex marriage, now heads to court.

The Times' Maura Dolan reports today:

Meeting in closed session, the state high court asked litigants on both sides for more written arguments and scheduled a hearing for next March. The court also signaled its intention to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages, asking litigants to argue that question.

Do you think the court acted rightly in agreeing to hear further arguments about Prop 8?  Or is this issue one that should ultimately be left up to California voters?  How do you think it will all be resolved?

Weigh in here.

Photos: Left, a supporter of gay marriage demonstrates during a rally November 15, 2008 in San Francisco. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images. Right, a Yes on Prop 8 supporter demonstrates at a rally November 15, 2008 in downtown L.A.  Credit: Barbara Davidson/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Daniel J Dormann]

this is the most important ca constitutional case in a generation.

[Kenmattos]

Yes, the California Supreme Court is right to review this. I think the case will move on to the U.S. Supreme Court for it is under amendments to the U.S. Constitution that this proposition will be overturned for it violates equal protection under the law and resembles the Loving v. Virginia case. I would hope the nation's highest court would rule justly and fairly and state this actions such as Proposition 8 are unconstitutional.

[redoriley]

This is not an issue that should be left up to a popular vote. If we are to learn from history, the voice of the people was loud and clear in Weimar Germany. Their voice led to Kristalnacht. And if it’s true that those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it, do we really want to legally instigate another pogrom here and now?

[rachel]

yes! the court should absolutely hear this case immediately. it'll be a tragedy of justice if the amendment is allowed to stand. since when can a slim majority legislate their religious beliefs by discriminating against a minority? this is a religious issue at its core. prop 8 supporters are brainwashed by religious propaganda and have yet to offer one reasonable argument for their stance that doesn't involve religion, "tradition" (another way of saying religion since the tradition is founded on religious fallacy), and bogus reasoning like "a child does better with a mother and a father"--where is the evidence for that statement? there is none! in fact, a child would probably do much better in a loving gay home than in a backwards home filled with brainwashed religious garbage about heaven and hell. how nice to tell your child that they'll go to hell if they're gay! if you ask me, it's a form of child abuse.

[THOMAS46]

What's the point in voting? First medical marijuana now this. Why bother when it has become apparent that money can and does buy the vote.

Idiocracy the movie, here, now.

[CA LDS]

to Kenmattos,
I agree that I would like the U.S. Supreme Court to take this issue up but I disagree with your projected outcome. With the current make up of the Court I am pretty sure that they will not support Gay Marriage as the vote will rest on how Justice Kennedy rules (the others will be a 4-4 split) and I do not think that he would support taking it away from a States right issue and it is more likely that it could pave the wave for overturning the State Court in MA and Conn. and leave marriage between a man and woman and civil union to Gays.

[Rick]

All you have to do is look at the wesites showing where the money came from to support or oppose prop 8. Since when do so many people in Utah get to decide what we do here in California? If that isn't indicative of the Mormon church brainwashing the people than I do not know what is. There was even one Utah individual who donated $1,000,000 to support prop 8. The names and businesses are all there for you to see.

[Rita]

Good afternoon!
Let it be known that we have all voted so let it go! It is what it is what is there is no need to argue and debate about it! Honestly!

[DingTank]

I believe, if the court includes the rights of children in their interpretation of the constitution, that the yes on 8 ammendment will be upheld.

However, if they narrow their interpretation to exclude them, then they are obviously biased and will use this ruling to strike at the religious aspect of this anti-movement.

[Chad]

The question at hand is whether this is a civil rights issue or not. Inwhich the question turns to whether people are born gay or is it a choice.
If they are born gay then it is a civil right and they should be allowed to be married.
If it is a lifestyle choice then it is not a right to be married, it is a matter of opinion as to whether the people of a society should allow gay marriages in which it should be put to the vote of that society.

I personally think it is a choice, as being gay flies in the face of all rules of evolution.....in which the whole point is to pass on viable genetic offspring that can reproduce better than the ones before you.

[DingTank]

"a child does better with a mother and a father"--where is the evidence for that statement? there is none

Uh, I've been screaming out the evidence. I was raised without a mother. But how do you argue about not having something? How does a blind person since birth describe to us what is is like not having site, when they've never had the ability to see? It is our own ability to see that allows us to sympathise with their plight.

But the SSM advocates are not being honest when they say that their mother or father meant absolutely nothing to them. Their whole movement is really a movement motivated, in large part, by their hatred towards their own parent(s), IMO.

How can you honestly debate with that going on on the other side?

[Mary]

I would also ask the ACLU and any other litigant to pursue denying tax exemption to the Mormon church, as they have violated their exemption status by interfering in politics and therefore, should be denied any tax breaks. And yes, the CA court had to hear this case, and if the US Supreme Court hears it, let's hope we have a few of the right wing nut job judges gone, yes you, Scalia and Thomas. Stealers of elections and unethical individuals.

[Mary]

To Chad: Posting at 4:43 PM

Chad, as a mother of a gay child who was torn up and in denial about being gay, to see the pain my son went through, trust me, he did not CHOOSE to be this way. He fought it for a long time, but sanity won out. Unless you know the angst personally, you have no clue the devastation this causes for a person's well being. It is not a choice for people, unfortunately. He would not have wanted this as the outcome.

[James]

I agree the court needs to hear the cases. Denying the cases would lead to a prolonged battle and eventually end up in the state Supreme Court anyway. Whether for or against Prop 8, each side has an interest in having the matter heard.
From what I understand, that legal arguments against Prop 8 are weak. Should the state court uphold Prop 8, I don't believe the US Supreme Court would even hear the matter. The US Supreme Court has never acknowledged gays and lesbians as a protected class as the state court has, and would likely leave the matter to be resolved by each state, which would leave Prop 8 standing.
Taking the matter to the federal level, should it be heard there, would create the possibility of a national ruling that would deny same sex marriage in all states. I don't think the risk is worth taking.
Anyway, the state court is doing the right thing by hearing the case, but things have changed significantly since the last time the issue was before them. I don't think the judges can find adequate cause to overturn Prop 8, and the best solution will be to return the issue to the ballot at each and every election possible until the people of the state are willing to repeal it.
With all the negativity generated on the NO side in the past few weeks, I wonder if the movement is starting backwards. It is highly emotional on both sides for sure.

[Resolved in LA]

The California Supreme court should definately hear this case. If they allow this revision disguised as amendment to stand, after the Mormon ammendment (Prop 8) will come the Catholic ammendment (only 1 marriage for life) and the Jewish ammendment (must marry in your own faith). You cannot have a 50% +1 majority deciding the basic fundimental civil rights of a minority of citizens. It needs to be done by a super majority of the legislature and then voted on. It is the way the system was designed to work. The court should overturn it.

[sasha Hall]

I can't believe in this day and age, people still think being gay is a choice? C'mon folks wake up! Ask any gay person and I'm sure they will tell you it is not. How can we be so arrogant as to think and guess for other people when so much is at stake?

[James]

I also agree with the poster above that legal fight in this issue is eventually going to force a court to decide whether homosexuality is a choice or not.

I can't imagine the court making such a determination.

Though it sounds mean to say, homosexual couple have the option of relocating to a state where marriage is allowed. On that same note, should same sex marriages be allowed in California, those who oppose it have the option of leaving if it is that big of a problem for them.

More and more states are denying it. As the trend continues it will be harder to overturn Prop 8 type legislation. This pending ruling in California is really going to be the one that sets the precedent for all other states.

I, for one, don't believe the feds will touch it with 10-foot pole.

[Peter]

The refusal to permit marriages is ominous.

[QuE?]

To those who say "We voted, now get over it"....why is it so difficult to understand that:
a/The role of the courts is to protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority. If that were not true, we would not have had the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of the 60s, and many other protection/rights extended to minority groups. Could we the people just have voted those existing rights away? Of course not.

b/The courts are going to throw this out. It's unconstitutional...so "Deal with it."...But the good thing is, by reinforcing that the majority cannot strip away the rights of a minority, Mormons and other religions won't have to worry about having any of their true rights voted away by the rest of us. Win-win.

[QuE?]

Chad, why would millions of people out there lie about whether being gay is a choice or not for them? What's in for them by lying vs. what you and many others gain (some level of comfort?) by continuing to believe that it's a choice? Interesting question for a lot of people.

[busytimmy]

To all of you people who keep on screaming, "What about the children!!!"
Here's something from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

"A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."

and from the American Psychiatric Assoc.:

"Civil marriage is associated with a unique set of benefits that provide
legal and economic protections to adults in committed relationships and to
their children. Equal access to the institution of civil marriage is consistent
with the APA’s opposition to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Therefore be it resolved that:
In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the
American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of
same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities
conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same
rights, benefits, and responsibilities.”

Spain, Norway, South Africa, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands all have marriage equality, the sun still rises and sets and children have normal lives. Stop using children as a shield to hide behind while oppressing gay Californians! Start believing in science, sound public policy and equality!

[Eric]

I love it. Instead of saying something pat like "God works in mysterious ways" to explain homosexuality, which is not a choice, and which no one who knows anything about it thinks is a choice, these people just keep insisting that it is a choice, because otherwise they would have to accept gay people even though they obviously don't understand them. They get to pick and choose what is "mysterious" and what is clearly explainable, and how neat and tidy for them. None of the messy business of accepting that there is not an easy explanation for everything or, even more tedious, trying to learn more about it. Just close your mind and keep going. That's what Prop 8 was all about, and why those of us who are disgusted by it will never just "get over it."

[Very simple]

To all the so-called "Christian" neanderthals out there who still cling to the notion that being gay is a choice, do a little research online and you find many examples in nature of gay animals, e.g., dolphins, penguins, monkeys, etc.

Interesting how you are OK that your God created these gay creatures and yet you still have a problem with gay humans

[Al Keys]

It boggles my mind that a court would think it had the ability to judge something that is so utterly biological, psychological, and sociological in nature. And oh yes....theological, but leave that aside for the sake of this discussion, it's not necessary. This would be the same as the court deciding whether or not "E = MC squared" is the same as "a squared + b squared = c squared."

Once again---we have a name for a specific kind of relationship between male and female human beings. These *different* kinds of human beings complement each other physically, psychologically, and sociologically in a most unique way. These are things we can observe; they require no Bible or Koran or any other source of divine revelation. Let's call it a "grok." Since prehistoric times it's *always* been a "grok." It's not a civil right; rather, like E = MC squared it is a natural phenomenon.

Now then. Note what is essential to a grok---a man and a woman. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman decide they want to be "grokked," well, they can't because they lack the complementary (note it's spelled with an "e") equipment and psychological make-up to form this particular kind of social-human relationship that we call a "grok." No need to have babies, although it is only in a grok that two human beings can physically produce such an addition to the human race. But having babies is not essential to the equation. Having a male and a female *is* essential.

And so....there can be no equality issue here, not because it's not fair, but because there's an observable, self-evident natural law that restricts this relationship to a man and a woman.

This doesn't mean that any other two human beings, same gender or not, don't have rights by reason of their intense, sincere, and committed relationship. But it is essentially different from a "grok" and ought to be called something else. Like a civil union. And don't tell me I hate these people because I see what I see. I don't hate them. I like many of them very, very much. Just like anybody else. Anyone can befriend and love anyone else. But they can't, um, grok them.

That's why I say "yes" on "grok."

[Mike W]

If you support yes on 8 I ask one simple question. What/whom is protecting your decision about my life on your religious beliefs?

I don't like the god you worship. My god doesn't need money, doesn't need politicians and doesn't need a mouthpiece telling anyone how to vote with their conscience.

I don't like the way you think but I don't get to vote on whom you choose to worship or marry. If you want your freedom I want mine too.

Mob rule isn't American.

[Tom]

To Mary posting at 4:52.

You are sadly mistaken. You did your child a disservice by not demanding more of him. Regardless of ones orientation, Acting out on sexual tendencies is ALWAYS a choice (unlike being born into a race). To suggest that gay individuals must be a protected class because of their sexual orientation is to label them unable to control their sexual tendencies like straight people. Humans do have the capacity to control their urges...you and other gay rights people do gays a disservice by raising their immoral behavior to a protected status

[BuenLB]

Because proposition 8 comes down to a simple technicality, a definition really, it makes no sense to call it a civil rights issue. Homo-sexual unions are, by their very nature, different than hetero-sexual marriages. It is not discriminatory to acknowledge a difference. If people want to preserve the technical definition of marriage for religious reasons they have a right to vote accordingly and in a democracy they have the right to see that vote honored. A few justices striking down the will of the people for the second time on the same issue seems a dangerous precedent to set.

[GeorgeP]

Want to protect marriage? Make divorce illegal. Want to protect marriage? Work to criminalize adultery. Want to protect marriage? Fight to impose penalties on pre-marital sex.

The day that the Mormon Church, Focus on the Family, Knights of Columbus and all of you anti-gay marriage posters work just as hard to pass these types of laws will be the day that you stop being hypocrites. The day that you fight to mandate that straight people can only have sex with one person, after they marry him or her (and that marriage can never be dissolved) will be the day that you stop being discriminatory.

[Steve Jerardo]

My question...why? Can't the State Supreme Court realize that we the people of California do not want gay marriages in our state? The fact that they are willing once again to take this issue up sends a message that once again they will vote against the majority of the voters in California. So guess what, it will end up in the Supreme Court and it will be overturned once and for all. Yes on 8!

[Jay]

Tom,

I feel terrible for your children. What you said to Mary, were she to act on that, would be tantamount to child abuse. If here son were left-handed, did he CHOOSE that? How about his hair color...geez, if he really wanted to be right handed he would just try harder. Your attitude toward gay people is completely ignorant of truth and fact. Do some research and self-education.

[James]

Many of these forum discussions gravitate toward the religious aspects of the argument. However, the underlying issues that got this whole same sex marriage issue rolling were related to a perceived inequality in federal taxes, long-term medical care, and an assortment of other issues.
By challenging marriage, gay advocates hope to gain those tax benefits, ability to make medical decisions for loved ones, etc etc.
Why isn't there more effort to alter the existing tax legislation to achieve the equality sought? If hospitals and insurance companies are discriminating against gay couples why aren't more lawsuits brought to the court on those grounds?
California law (Section 297.5 of the Family Code) already grants registered domestic partners the same rights of spouses. Claiming they do not have equal rights is false. No doubt there is still discrimination, but it is not a matter that needs to involve redefining what history has always known as marriage.
If all the money that has been spent fighting Prop 22 and Prop 8 had been spent promoting legislation to ensure equal protection under existing law then there would not have been a fraction of the opposition that has surfaced against gay marriage.
I believe marriage is the wrong venue for gay rights advocates. The fight should be with the IRS and insurance companies. Advocates should take their fight to court each and every times registered domestic partners are discriminated against and not provided equal protection as assured in the Family Code.
Below is part of Family Code 297.5 and is the reason why gay advocates who claim they are denied equal rights are absolutely wrong. They need to fight to enforce existing law and stop trying to radically change all of society on the pretense that they will gain rights that they are currently denied. Granted, this is state law and not federal, which is part of the problem. The state has done its part already.

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

[Michael F]

To Tom | November 19, 2008 at 05:20 PM
How dare you tell a parent what's best for their own child based on your set of religious beliefs. I'm astounded at your suggestion that a parent should make the life of a child who's dealing with his sexuality more difficult. Do you have any idea how many children are kicked out of their houses or commit suicide over this?

[ramiro]

To Steve:

The court will rule to protect gays from the tyranny of the uneducated intolerant bigots. If you want a theocracy I can recommend several countries in the ME where you might wish to relocate.

[Sam]

I trust the courts...more so than the voting public. Reason and sense will prevail and CA Economy will get a boost from all the forthcoming weddings.

[Mike Tidmus]

The Court's original ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights “so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.”

There is no way they will back away from that.

Prop 8 est mort.

[Where are they?]

Why aren't all these people, with all their energy and obvious concern for the future of our children volunteering in the school system/tutoring programs? I am a volunteer and was a social worker and the majority of people that did the same are gay....go figure..

[Jeff Griffin]

Prop 8 isn't about the right to same-sex marriage. It's about the right of our state and federal courts to enforce the most important and basic clause in our state and federal constitutions: the right to equal protection.

We can argue about the merits of recognizing same-sex partnerships all day long, the basic constitutional issue of equal protection far outweighs it in scope and gravity. Gay people are an easy target, and they have been for the last 3000 years. Persecution of them is not only politically correct, it's enshrined in our religions, and now in our state constitution. But has anyone from the Yes on 8 camp even mentioned the last 40+ years of scientific research? We know sexual orientation is not a "choice", and we know it is unchangable. We therefore have only two options: fire up the ovens, or accept gay people as equal partners into our society. Everything in between is nothing but delusion and hypocrisy.

Of course the Catholic Church, LDS and other religions continue to portray human sexual orientation as a choice. Of course they simply ignore the last 40+ years of medical research on this issue, and of course they continue to claim homosexuality is some kind of moral failing, because it's the only way they can begin to rationalize their very long and very ugly history of persecution of gay people. If someone has a response to this particular point, I've yet to hear it.

[CA LDS]

To Rick at 4:45,
Yes there one a person from Utah that donate $1,000,000 for yes on 8, just as there was an ex-mormon from Utah that donated more then $1,000,000 to the No on 8 campaign just like a lot of other out of state interest that sent financial support to both sides. The reason for that is this was view by many people in the nation as more then just an issue in CA. There is concern on the Yes on 8 side that if a Gay couple comes to CA and were to be married then they could go back to their home state and petition to have it accepted which would impose CA laws on their State. On the No on 8 side many understood that if Prop 8 passed it would be a major set-back on moving their agenda forward. Both sides had a lot to win or lose on the outcome.

[CA LDS]

To Mary at 4:48,
The Church of Christ Christ of Latter Day Saints did not donate to the Yes on 8 campaign other then a donation that covered travel expenses for Church leaders to attend a couple of meeting which had to be declared. The members of the Church gave of their own personal money and it was separate from what we normally tithe to our Church. But if you want to follow your logic out then you would have to strip any non-profit that donated to the No on 8 campaign of their tax exempt status as well. I think if you look into it you will that many non-profits donated directly to No on 8 (several of them being employment unions.) Sorry you cannot have it both ways.

[John McLaughlin]

In his drafting of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson used the phrase “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” He took this phrase—a phrase upon which he would argue for our right to become a sovereign nation—from the writings of British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) and English jurist William Blackstone (1723-1780) best known for his historical and analytic treatise on English common law (Commen-taries on the Laws of England ). Both Locke and Blackstone were convinced that man’s laws must not conflict with the laws of nature instituted by nature’s God.

The writings of Locke and Blackstone greatly influenced the American Revolutionaries and subsequently the framing of our United States Constitution. So with all the debate surrounding the passage of California’s Prop 8—all too often mere verbiage that’s primarily driven by misguided passions rather than objective reason—I believe it would be both prudent and timely to consider those eight words from our Declaration of Indepence that served as an underpinning for our constitutional law.

Any fair minded citizen must conclude that homosexual acts go against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Same sex couples cannot naturally reproduce neither can they engage in sexual intimacy in the very manner that nature’s God has so designed the human body. Therefore, to inact a law that recognizes any union that goes against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” would indeed violate the higher law that was instituted by our Creator and that the framers of our Constitution deemed foundational for the good of any society.

Why would we as citizens of California attempt to establish any law that would undermine the foundations of our constitutional law? Do we deem ourselves wiser than those who have gone before—those who laid the foundations of the world’s greatest democracy—a democracy that has grown and thrived for well over two centuries? If through our laws we should validate homosexual unions as a legitimate expression of marriage, then we would in fact go against the wisdom of our nation’s founders.

On November 4th I believe that our state’s citizens made the correct call when they passed proposition 8. They were not overturning some inalienable right granted by our Creator and embraced by our founding Fathers. They were merely upholding “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” And from their own writings we may also deduce that John Locke, William Blackstone and Thomas Jefferson would most certainly agree.

[Richard]

So, the voters vote and if the Stalinist Left doesn't like the outcome they will get their cronies on the bench to overturn the will of the people.

Tell me again: Why do we even bother to vote in the first place.

Sieg Heil, Liberals. Sieg Heil.

[James]

To Mike Tidmus who said:
"The Court's original ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights “so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.”

There is no way they will back away from that."

The ruling at that time was based upon a Constitution that did not define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The argument before the court now is not even one that is about the "right" to marry... it is about whether defining marriage as between a man and a woman is significant enough of a change to qualify it as a revision rather than as an amendment.

The court is not in a position where it will have to back away from that previous ruling. It only has to decide whether the modification to the Constitution was made legally. If the amendment stands then the court must determine what will become of same sex marriages already performed. If the amendment is thrown out it will have to be on the grounds that it was improperly placed on the ballot to begin with.

If Prop 8 is thrown out then legal challenges will liekly continue to the Supreme Court. If Prop 8 stands, well, time will tell if advocates will go to the Supreme Court or not. Doing so could seriously damage progress made on domestic partnerships in all states.

[peter]

If the California supreme court can overturn and invent their own laws, why do we have legislators or even voters for that matter? The people have spoken, just like 35 other states. For the gay population to demonstrate and apply pressure to those who can override the public' decision, would be like the McCain voters demonstrating because Obama won. Do not let the minority overrule the majority!

[Kelly in the Southbay]

To all those that believe that sexual orientation is a choice....when did you make your choice? To be hetero or gay? Were you a small child and knew that something about you was hetero or were you in college and decided that you were going to live a hetero lifestyle? Is it a recurring decision for you each time you date someone? For instance, after 50 percent of your marriages ended in divorce did you then make the choice your again or were you fine with making the choice one and done?

Or did you just know all along you were hetero and your orientation was never a choice it is just how you were all along.

Personally, I believe that any hetero that says its a choice did indeed make the choice. But the choice wasn't between being straight or being gay...the choice was between being themselves or pretending to be straight. And they are pretending to be straight. And pretending others make the same bad choice to be something they are not.

[Sue]

To all those who think homosexuality is a choice: I like what Dear Abby had to say on the matter. She said - well, then give it a try. You try being gay for awhile - say 5 years or so - and report back to us. If it is a choice, you should be able to do it, right?

[Sue]

TO GEORGE P -

Ok, so the voters decide...therefore we should have let them vote on school desegregation. Or let the men vote on whether women should have the right to vote. Pretty dumb, huh. This is why we have the courts and why we have laws. We don't have the public vote on a minority's rights - sounds like a high school popularity contest but not a society founded on equality

[Jeff]

No to Gay marriage in California. Oh wait . . The people have voted twice already! The militant gays who continue to protest my will only serve the right-minded to redouble their efforts!

[Busy American]

You have a right to marry but society has always had the right to limit whom you can marry. You cannot marry someone who is already married, underage, closely related, or of the same sex. Applied equally to all. Constitutional. Period.

[John]

Yes the courts should hear the case. The issue of whether there is a revision or amendment to the state constitution should be clarified. Therefore in the future both parties and any other parties who wish to change the constitution will know and understand the correct process. The issue before the court is not whether you can change the constitution to deny homosexual marriage but what the correct process to do such would be. It clearly can be denied as it is a state right, not one granted by the federal government. Furthermore under the federal constitution a persons sexual orientation has never been construed as a suspect class under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, thereby be subject to an intermediate scrutiny or rational basis (who knows See Lawrence v. Texas), which will not violate the federal constitution. It can be done, and has in about 30 other states.

Personally I believe the voters should decide. If you can amend the constitution like this then the anti-prop 8 group can amend the constitution next election. What I find most disheartening the use of the word tolerance throughout the homosexual community. Tolerance does not mean the acceptance of your beliefs but the acceptance that people are free to choose to believe what they will and exercise their rights based on those beliefs.

Voters choose to define marriage as a hetersexual relationship. Domestic Partners are given coextensive rights as married couples in the state of California. That being so Proposition 8 centers around two major issues.

First the use of the a word used coextensively in a legal and religious nature (one which the great majority of religions and cultures recognize as being heterosexual). Being that the same legal rights are accorded to Marriages and Domestic Partnerships and the emotional impact upon all married couples (heterosexual or homosexual) is very great, I think its best that the general populous decide the issue. If homosexual couples couldn't inherit, get tax breaks (which are not accorded federally and won't be under DOMA), see their loved ones in the hospital, and all the other things married couples do I would feel othewise. But thats not the case, so if the majority of voters want to distinguish between two types of relationships by two types of names, due to a distinct difference which happens to sexual orientation, fine. Fight over the word by amending the constitution over and over until one ideaology prevails.

Second, Prop 8 has full faith and credit implications. If you use the word marriage then other states who have not interpreted marriages in their constitutions, nor denied it (as 30 states have), then such states may have to give full faith and creditt to California Homosexual marraiges. I think personally this an unfortunate tactic by the homosexual community. This creates a situation that forces the hands of other states to amend their constitution out of fear of having homosexual marriage forced upon them by legislature foriegn to their state. Such a tactic has its time and place and I think this card was played a little too soon.

Lastly remember that tolerance doesn't require anyone to accept your views, or for you to accept theirs. If your homosexual and anti-prop 8 rally and go to the courts, challenge prop 8. If your pro-prop 8 rally around the voters and what they approved. But we tolerate what we decide as a society is the law and until these cases are heard or another proposition is raised the law allows everyone to marry and everyone to have a domestic partnership. If your heterosexual you can marry if you homosexual you can get a domestic partnership.

[ramiro]

to john:

If we are talking about the " laws of nature", then you must admit that homosexual relatiinships happen in the animal world. It has been documented in dolphins and monkeys to name a few. So how then can you argue that homosexuality is somehow unnatural? Further, if you believe that God is infallable, then homosexuality must be natural. Hence, your argument is moot.

Please educate yourself before you pontificate!