1 My thought is that the government should get out of the regulation of marriage business.

2 I agree with you in theory but Prop. 8 is an attempt to bar the California court system from making gay marriage into law.

I think I've mentioned before, I agree with Alice H, civil marriage is none of the state's business except to enforce a contract the same as any other contract.  So, yeah, I do not give a crap about gay marriage.  Frankly, I've never cared about having some type of official sanction for my life.

I totally agree about the attempts to make churches recognize marriages should be met with all (legal) possible resistance.  And, trust me, that's next on the agenda.  The plan is to start suing to revoke tax exemptions based on the church's discriminatory acts.  Yeah, that's really really really going to keep religious people from thinking that Teh Gheys are attacking their faith.  You betcha.

Look, all I ask is that no one attempt to cause me physical harm due to my sexuality.  Want to call me names?  Go for it!  Want to tell me I'm going to hell?  Yeah, that's not exactly a short line.  I don't really care if people wrinkle their noses at me or make nasty comments or whatever.  Just don't try to harm me.  That's all the tolerance I seek.

3 I agree with you in theory but Prop. 8 is an attempt to bar the California court system from making gay marriage into law.

See, I thought it was an outright ban, not a ban on the judiciary making laws.

4 My thought is that the government should get out of the regulation of marriage business.

This would be what I'd do if I were Dictator for Life^TM.  Then I'd order an invasion of Cuba, throw out the commie wankers and rebuild the cigar and rum industries.  Awesome.

5 commencing legal wonking - now!

See, I thought it was an outright ban, not a ban on the judiciary making laws.

It is an outright ban.  But this proposition came about after another law and/or proposition (you see how closely I pay attention to this) was enacted that specifically stated that marriage in Cali would be defined as only between a man and a woman.  This went all the way up to the CA Supremes who decided that this definition was in violation of the anti-discrimination language in the California constitution.  This resulted in the Court ordering that gay marriage was legal.  So the only way to respond to that is to amend the California constitution.

6 See, this is why every site needs at least one lawyer around, couldn't they just use the constitution to just nullify the court's decision, or do they have to go nuclear?

7 The reason it ended up this way is because Californians had two competing policy preferences:

1. Anti-discrimination, defined to include sexual orientation discrimination.

2. Marriage, defined only as between a man and a woman.

When it came to the courts, they had to reconcile the two.  Since the anti-discrimination policy was in the California Constitution, the Cal Supreme Court held that it overturned the marriage policy because the marriage policy was only a statute.

So, now, Prop 8 is to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, thus making it equal in force to the anti-discrimination policy.

8 Gah, too much of an unnecessarily complex legalese clusterfuck.  Brain hurts.  I'm going to watch more old cartoons.  Next on the list?  'What's Opera, Doc?', for the bajillionth time.  No, it never gets old, that's why it's a fucking classic.

9

You can place the blame for this squarely on the activist Cali SC and, to a lesser extent, the spineless legislators in the state assembly as well as the radical gay lobby and their myriad supporters.

I don't live in California anymore (part of the reason I'm gone is stuff like this) but I'd vote 'yes' simply because a firebreak needs to be established that clearly shows that if/when judicial activists (and their allies/enablers) over-step their bounds, they're going to be rebuked severely. In fact, it's due to the failure of such checks that the judiciary (en masse) has felt it has so much leeway to legislate from the bench for decades now. It is, indeed, a shame that some well-meaning people will be ground up in the gears but this is what happens when you play with fire.

As for the question of who gets to regulate marriage no, the state probably shouldn't be involved (just like it shouldn't be invovled in education, healthcare and pretty much 95% of everything else it has its tentacles wrapped around), but to get itdis-entangled at this point would take multiple Constituional amendments, so that position, except philosophically, is a non-starter.

Finally, there is also the question of gay activists over-playing their hand: Instead of letting time march on to where this sort of thing would, eventually, become accepted by the majority, they are attempting to ram-rod it down America's throat when the nation simply isn't ready for it (they want what they want now and to hell with the 'bigots' and 'haters'). This lack of strategic foresight and empathy for their fellow Americans is (and has been) biting them in the ass for nearly a decade now and, yet, they simply refeuse to re-trench or attempt a different tack (someone didn't read their Sun-tzu or didn't learn the right lessons from it) and, at some point, their* radical agenda is going to need a serious re-think.

*This isn't just about gay radicals, but those with a much more diabolical agenda of which this battle is but one front.

10 I'd vote 'yes' simply because a firebreak needs to be established that clearly shows that if/when judicial activists (and their allies/enablers) over-step their bounds, they're going to be rebuked severely.

There are several points to discuss here, but I think this is one of the most salient.  If the people of California (and I'm one of them) wanted gay marriage, it could be enacted through our legislature or through the referendum process.  If that happened (especially the latter) I wouldn't have a problem with it.  But when the courts suddenly decide that, out of nowhere, a new "right" exists that has never existed before, that's something problematic.

Not to mention the fact that we already have a domestic partnership law here...

11 Words have meaning.  If the state opts to take ownership over the word and associated concept of marriage I must defend it as I understand it.  On the other hand, if the state were willing to surrender that control and, instead offer both straight and gay couples civil unions and let individuals work out who is and isn't married, that would be ideal.