[Always Right]

But what a stupid outcome. It’s like telling your kids that it’s wrong to steal, but letting them keep the stuff they swiped from the store yesterday.

Yea and no...if you stole something before it was illegal to steal, then legally you should get to keep it. Of course it was only legal because the courts in the first place.

[longtermmemmory]

keeping in mind the court legislated the 18,000 marriages by overturning the will of the people the first time.

While what they did is analogous to outlawing common law marraige with existing marriages, it is not correct to apply that since they are two totally different issues.

The court was telegraphing that this has to be at the ballot box again. IOW those 18,000 marriages will have to be eliminated by popular vote. (or if stats hold true, within 24 months 75% of those relationships will be over)

[bigbob]

I see your point, but if you proceed from the view that marriage is between one man and one woman in the first place, then morally at least, it’s always been wrong do do otherwise. But as you say, since a court previously said it was OK, I can see how they view this as a dilemma, and see fit to allow the existing gay marriages to stand.

[fwdude]

The allowing of 18,000 fake marriages to remain "marriages" is meaningless, only a feel-good status for the homo-anarchists. The same "rights" would be retained by those now-illegal "marriages" if they simply reverted to domestic partnerships: taxation (state), employment, inheritance, end-of-life decisions, etc. Everything that they always crow that they want. But we all know this isn't what they're really after.