[Gay State Conservative]

I really think they deliberately upheld the existing “marriages” to give the queers something on which to base “precedence” when they contest this further.

Where do the pervs go? Is there a state court in CA that's higher than their Supreme Court? My hunch is that the decision they announced was as far as they could go and still avoid recall.I'll wager that they wanted to strike down the whole thing but settled for "half a loaf" so that both sides could claim *some* degree of victory.

[Aunt Polgara]

Has anyone heard yet what the vote was?

3 of the justices are up for retention in 2010, George, Moreno and Chin.

George and Moreno both voted for gay marriage the last time around.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Where do the pervs go?

The pervs will attempt to qualify a ballot initiative in an attempt to reverse the Prop 8 vote. The pervs will also continue to indoctrinate the children in our government schools and keep churning out "gay-friendly" voters.

[mrsmel]

I frankly admit to knowing nothing about legal matters, but it does seem as though (using the standard of common sense rather than legal technicalities) allowing the previous "marriages" to stand somehow gives the queers something to stand on by being able to say "how are these 'marriages' legal when they've been ruled unconstitutional"? I don't know how that would work in a court, but it makes sense to me (I mean from their viewpoint. I of course vehemently disagree with the notion of queer "marriage", and to me it would only be common sense that if the court has also said so, then how can they say that the contracts previously engaged are "marriage"? )