Totally disappointing if indeed they uphold Prop.8. Seems the CA Supreme court doesn’t understand the word “equality” either.

It’s sad that so many in this world don’t understand that equality is a myth. We are individuals which means that no one is equal. We are what we are based on genetics, which are all different and personal choices, which are all different. We as a nation are given the opportunity to vote and decide on issues. As citizens we metaphorically sign a treaty that says that the will of the people is law and should be obeyed. Challenges are allowed, but if they fail, than it is the duty of the citizen to comply peacefully with the law.
The problem with this whole thing could easily be avoided. Government needs to get out of the marriage business all together. I mean really, what’s wrong with a civil union law? And why is it so intolerable to respect someone’s religion. That is prejudice just as intolerance to sexual preference.

Equality like if I vote different than you it counts as much and is just as valid as your vote?
That is equality that does seem to exist at least in the courts.

The question was not about equality. The oral argument focused on whether the amendment process changed the constitution enough to be classified as a revision. That’s a technical question. The people did vote on the issue. Was it a small enough change that it’s the kind that a simple majority can change?
Several times, advocates tried to bring up broader equality issues. Unless those were framed in a way to answer the narrow technical question, the court cut them off very quickly.
This was not a relitigation of the issues of Marriage Cases. The court was not interested in hearing argument to that effect.

The church has proved once again that you can buy anything in this world with money. Even the California constitution.

A disappointment for gay rights lawyers?
Probably.
Does that mean it looks like Prop 8 is here to stay?
Not likely.
But to suggest otherwise certainly makes for a cute headline.

Hahaha, here to stay? At best, the Supreme Court will give Prop. 8 a reprieve. It is certainly not here to stay, maybe just here for a little while longer.

Kaimi, I enjoyed your reporting over at Concurring Opinions on the arguments in court. Thanks.

Seconded (what Tom D said).

I strongly suspect we will see a ballot initiative in the state within the next two election cycles that will overwhelmingly remove the Prop 8 language from the Constitution and restore status quo ante.

RJohnson: “quo ante”- Latin for who’s your auntie? Similar meaning to the Romans to “Who’s your Daddy?”

Jerry,
“Equality like if I vote different than you it counts as much and is just as valid as your vote?”
Ah, but Jerry, your right to marry the person of your mutual choosing was never put to a vote, now, was it?
it isn’t that anyone’s vote counts for more than another person’s vote. It’s the subject of the vote – taking away some people’s rights.
Tell us, who’s rights should be voted on next? Because if Prop 8 is upheld, there’s going to be a slew of propositions for which any minority person shouold be quaking in his or her boots.

Husband,
That assumes you or I ever had a “right” to a government endorsed marriage in the first place.
Tell me something.
Do you have a Constitutional right to the “child tax credit” on your Form 1040? How about the “Earned Income Credit?” Do you have a right to those?
What makes your claim to government benefits associated with marital status any different?

Seth,
According to both the Legislature and the Supreme Court of California, gay people and you betterosexuals both have the “right” to marry. Such a “right” is not in the Federal Constitution, not even for str8s. That is why I much prefer to speak of liberty, i.e. the freedom to marry. America is known as the “Land of the Free” (TM), but freedom is greatly reduced for its homosexual citizens. I also speak of the “inalienable right”, not only to liberty but also to the pursuit of happiness. Neither seems to apply to gay Americans.
Also, I guess you didn’t know it, but I’m not an American. I am a gay,legally married Canadian, currently snowbirding in Florida for 6 months where, the moment I crossed the border, my legal relationship has zero legal “rights”. So none of those “credits” – a right or not – appear on my tax form.
Having said that, your question about government benefits associated to marital status is moot, since the Federal government denies 1,176 such benefits to legally married gay couples.
Try again, but bring better arguments.

I wonder if there’s going to be a Mormon Church backlash to yesterday’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling declaring the ban on gay marriage UN-Constitutional? I wonder how many $$$ the Mormons will pump into that debate in trying to take their rights away?
(Ya gotta admit tho, sure is an interesting way to bankrupt a church.)