Is that a prediction that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gay civil rights? What makes you think so if it is?

Tyranny of the majority is to be feared. This is the very reason that the bill of rights were conceived.

It's *neither*.

It's a country ruled by special interests through their lobbyists.

Because every other minority group eventually has gotten their rights. This should not even be a controversy but it is. We should not have to fight for our rights but we will, and it will happen. It's just a matter of when not if.

But Gov. Arnold said he would fight special interests... what happened :P

95% of the things the numerous governments do is illegitimate, and unconstitutional... Why the ruckus all of the sudden? The perception that voting matters is the soap opera. Patrick Henry knew it, the constitution was a means for the federal government to expand powers, there's no reason to think a state constitution would be any different. Just one more piece of paper that makes people feel good to talk about.
Anybody wants to do as they wish with their lives then, quit asking/begging/suing for government approval. In the case of marriage, it was once forced upon certain parts of the population. Now it's all backwards. Just make it inaccessible and watch the sheep fight over it like dope fiends as you loot their houses.

Can you give us a quick example?

The majority of people would gain if we voted to allow live disections of a few people.

Majority rule and ethical behaviors do not equate one another.

This sounds about right to me.

Voters do not get to vote away the people's rights under the constitution. Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, an agreement to share living expenses in a common household. Under the 14th Amendment, we are all equal under the law. Under the Declaration of Independence, we are guaranteed three basic rights which underpin all others, the rights to Life, Liberty, and most important in the case of homosexuals, the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness. The voters of California seek to deny homosexuals their right to equality to enter into a legal contract under the law in the case of the 14th, and the Right to Pursuit of Happiness under the Declaration. Tell me, if the voters vote to take your guns away or to deny you the right to free speech, it is obvious by your reasoning here that you would be ok with that, right?

I like that, a very good arguement.

At last. Some clear thinking. The long term strategy is to get this to the Supreme Court. Maybe two years or more from that today, with a whistle stop at the Ninth Circuit. Given the current court makeup, I would agree it's a risk. Men do die, however. But if the cause is worth fighting (in the courts) for, no point in waiting.

Correct me if I am wrong someone, but is it not true that in every state gay marraige has been on the ballot it has been defeated by the voters? Not that it matters constitutionally, but it does reflect the general mood of the citizens.

You may not have heard about it out there but the NJ Senate (Democratically controlled) just last week failed to get a bill passed approving gay marraige. We already do have a civil union statute for gays and elderly hetero couples, but "it's not working" well enough for those folks.
NJ has been a solid Democratic and generally liberal state. But we have a Rep. Guv coming soon.

Scalia himself stated, as a result of striking down sodomy laws, that if the case ever makes it in front of the court they will have to legalize gay marriage. The State must show a compelling state interest in banning a contract between two individuals - the right to contract is a common law right that goes back to the Magna Carta. If sodomy is not illegal, what "compelling interest" does the state have in banning gay marriage? There is none. Even a conservative court would have a hard time coming up with one that would stick. The precedents are in Utah polygamy cases from back in the 1880's. The state of Utah was able to ban polygamy because it claimed a compelling state interest in preventing a man from siring dozens of children that he would not be able to support, meaning the tax payers would get stuck with the bill, and a compelling interest in preventing a woman from marrying multiple men because history has shown this only leads to violence as men tend to kill each other over women quite frequently, meaning that it was a threat to the public order and a disturbance of the peace. In the case of men and women marrying first-degree relatives, The State has a compelling interest to prevent the spread of genetic defects that again the taxpayers would have to pick up the tab for in warehousing the offspring, and now gay marriage opponents, it's your turn - what exactly is the compelling state interest in banning gay marriage? I have asked that question over and over to conservatives and have yet to get one answer that would stand a test against the Equal Protection Clause. Come on, just one reason. So far, the compelling reason is the one that motivates voters to vote in elections to deny other people's rights: rank, grotesque prejudice.

Inability to sire cannon fodder to fill future ranks.

Seriously though. There's no reason. It's a non issue to my mind.

- Peter.

It's very obvious that gay marrage will eventually be legalized in all states, it's just a matter of time and lawsuits. I'm not sure why some conservatives have choosen to fight this battle, they must have more important issues to worry about. For them, this is just another opportunity to wind up on the wrong side of history.