thereby ensuring that our equal rights stay many years away.

a very sad day indeed, as i was lucky enough to witness the joy of same-sex couples taking vows at city hall the day after newsome began allowing gay marriage in SF. however, this issue will ultimately have to be decided by voters. mores are a reflection of societal attitudes, and laws are a reflection of shared mores. the supreme court wants no part of this debate, and as the california debacle proves, court rulings mean little if some sort of reasonable consensus on the part of voters isn't behind them. that's especially true in california, where the f-ed up referendum process will ensure that courts will literally have to continue to follow voters' lead.

If you go here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF?tsp=1

you can read the whole decision, but I suggest going to Justice Moreno's dissenting opinion, which starts at page 151. He states that the majority's decision essentially guts the equal protection clause of the California State Constitution. Long short, many of the people who voted to take away someone else's rights, those racial minorities, women, members of religious groups who supported Prop 8, have opened up the legal corridor for propositions to discriminate against themselves. While there may be some kind of cruel justice to that, it, too, is unfair.

It's a little Orwellian in that Ms. Mieszkowski simply twists language to mean whatever suits her cause the best. Surely at least FIFTY-THREE PERCENT of the public was ecstatic and joyful to see that their votes counted, and that their longstanding cultural customs were protected.

For example, the first couple (Kory O'Rourke and Kate Sheppard) are described as a family, along with "their" children. Unless some incredible miracle or gobsmacking advance in reproductive technology took place, "they" don't have children together. And their ADOPTED children will grow up without knowing their father, who was very likely purchased frozen sperm in a turkey baster.

I also dispute the quote from Kurt Fausset -- he is nearly 30, yet claims "he has been dreaming since childhood of the MAN HE WOULD SOMEDAY MARRY." Goodness, he's certainly got psychic abilities! He knew, even in 1985, that gay marriage would someday be legal? Honestly, I was an adult then, and it wasn't even a subject intelligent people bothered to debate, because it was so ridiculous and clearly off-the-table.

As far as Ken Broshous (and by extension, whiny Salonista's who bash traditional marriage, yet scream to extend it to gays), I have a surprise: many traditionalists would very much like to restrict casual, no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce is probably the greater destabilizer of marriage and family that exists, and BTW, it was invented in California (by a bunch of old rich white men, including Ronald Reagan, who promptly ALL used it to dump their aging wives for trophy bimbos).

HOWEVER, it is utterly absurd to demand that heterosexuals "give up" the right to divorce (which is surely sometimes very appropriate, where their is abuse or abandonment or infidelity) -- do they seriously think that gay couples will never contemplate or file for divorce?

So the Twitter hashtag "rejectProp8" (sentiment a bit late, don't you think?) got a lot of hits. Did Ms. Mieszkowski bother, in the great tradition of Broadsheeters who DO NO RESEARCH, to find out if any similar hashtags or websites promoting Prop 8 or straight marriage got a similar number of hits? No, of course not. Because in the great tradition of holding your hands over your ears and singing "lalalala" in a very loud voice, you only hear what you want to hear.

This is a relief (the ruling), but both sensible and expected. The voters, thankfully, have spoken -- as voters & citizens in Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and Iowa HAVE NOT BEEN PERMITTED to do (at least, not so far).

The only hard work remaining will be to pass legislation to invalidate the 18,000 "bogus marriages" that the Court has unfortunately allowed to stand (admittedly, they presented a legal problem) and convert them to civil unions. Then hopefully, Americans can turn their attention to the judicial and legislative abuses in the other states which have legalized gay marriage against the wishes of the citizenry.

Democracy: when you actually use it, it actually works.

The ruling today was backward step for a very repressed group. In addition to homosexuals, we als need to remember other repressed groups. I would like to see the federal government remember the global impoverished and do more to address global poverty for strategic and humanitarian reasons.

The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

May 26, 2009 is a day that will live in legal infamy. With the state tottering at the edge of a financial abyss a gutless California Supreme Court, cowering under fear of recall, committed suicide by upholding Prop. H8 and surrendering an independent judiciary to the invidious evil of majority tyranny. In doing so the Court didn’t just shoot itself in the foot but put its foot in its mouth before it pulled the trigger.

To read the full Salon post click the writers signature link.

For example, the first couple (Kory O'Rourke and Kate Sheppard) are described as a family, along with "their" children. Unless some incredible miracle or gobsmacking advance in reproductive technology took place, "they" don't have children together. And their ADOPTED children will grow up without knowing their father, who was very likely purchased frozen sperm in a turkey baster.

Hmmmmn, I've known heterosexual couples who have had the same proceedure because one or the other partner was sterile. So their children aren't legitimate either?

I'll have to admit, I haven't finished the article. I stopped when I read Proposition 8 actually modified the California constitution and thought, "Oh, that's why the ruling!"

A state supreme court is required to uphold the state constitution. If a state constitution is modified by amendment, the state SC cannot rule the change as "unconstitutional" because the new change IS PART OF the constitution. That's how you override a supreme court. Checks and balances.

Simply put, going to the California supreme court was a non-starter from the beginning. The only way to override a part of a state constitution is to either: 1) Pass a new Proposition (amendment) changing it yet again to legalize same-sex marriage, or 2) Go through the US courts for a ruling at the Federal level.

No, I'm not a lawyer. Anyone know if this was a first necessary step to challenge Prop 8 at the Federal level?