[NutCrackerBoy]

We are not winning the battle against judicial activism. And the next use of the courts will be to harrass churches or anyone else who acts only in accordance with traditional marriage.

[Southerngl]

Why bother voting? The judges will just come along and say “YOU CAN’T DECIDE THE LAWS!! WE DECIDE THE LAWS! WE ARE THE GODS OF THIS COUNTRY!”

[BibChr]

In related news, the California Supreme Court ruled that puce was a primary color, and the square root of 20 is 8201.

[goldstategop]

Marriage, the rule of law, judicial activism and freedom are under fire. Its not about allowing Adam and Steve to marry. Its about weakening and marginalizing traditional religious belief about marriage, the family and children. There's always a hidden agenda with the Left and its not about redefining the family. Its about redefining the very basis of our society.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[dan1123]

We are not winning the battle against judicial activism. And the next use of the courts will be to harrass churches or anyone else who acts only in accordance with traditional marriage.

And so God raises up Islam to incite violence to bring back some sense of morality.

[ProCivitas]

As a matter of procedural ethics, homosexual relations are equivalent to commercial sex/prostitution, polygamy, and polyamory/fornication/promiscuity. i.e. it is consentual behavior among competent adults.

'That don't make it a good idea'(as Chris Rock might say), and that doesn't make it something our public would choose to recognize/honor as 'marriage'. And defining all or none of these behaviors as marriage is a 'public policy question' for citizens and legislatures, not a 'constitutional, civil rights question' for courts.

Re the 'public policy question' of calling any of these behaviors 'marriage' and according them public benefits, the reason we haven't is that most of us don't believe these behaviors do any good, much less serve the traditional purposes/function of natural marriage.

For a rough analogy, a group's demonstrated enthusiasm for setting fire to items of their own property isn't likely to earn them a public standing as licensed firemen.

[arthurus]

I kind of expect the 9th Circus to take it up at some point and try to force the abomination on the entire country at the same time it “strikes down” the California marriage amendment when it passes or even before it pases.

[DesertRenegade]

Isn’t there any way to vote out these liberal activist judges? They are deliberately trying to destroy the traditional family unit.

[the invisib1e hand]

I guess you could say “the honeymoon’s over.”

[the invisib1e hand]

you go, girl.

I think Ms. Gallagher is being charitable in the extreme by calling the pronouncements of the gay-marriage media "surprisingly open." I would call them swaggering, saber-rattling, and gloating.

It is a law of nature that "pride goes before destruction." And that is a very good thing.

[fwdude]

Elite legal minds get to figure out what they think and break it to the rest of us once they’ve decided.

Maggie Gallagher and her razor-sharp message need to be showcased in every major periodical, blog, or television production that will have her from now until the November election. The things she reveals, if allowed to be disseminated, will sweep the homo-activists' agenda back a few years.

[SuziQ]

Less than a decade later, Eric Erbelding from the perch of his legally recognized Massachusetts gay marriage, is quite comfortable explaining to the New York Times that “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”
Eric elaborates why he think it works for gay men: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”

This comment needs to be trumpeted by the folks pushing for the amendment in CA. Voters need to know just why they're being asked to deny 'marriage' to homosexual. Homosexual activists are not looking for legal marriage, in the sense of everyone else's idea of the institution, which implies spouses' fidelity to each other, they're looking for societal approval of their sex obsessed lifestyle.