[Filo]

Rule of law is exactly what this is about.

Well it sure ain't about bigotry.

These judges haven’t been confined by the rule of law for a long time, making their decisions based on their ideals for society. the people are held in check with that phrase, but at some point, the judges must also play by the rule of law. Just look at that ridiculous decision that came out of Arizona a couple weeks ago, and tell me about the rule of law.

I won't argue with any of that, but it doesn't make this decision wrong, as much as you want it to.

Just think of it this way, most of those gays would just as soon deny Conservatives the same benefits in order to force them out of society.

If they gained a minority they'd be okay doing that, no?

Conservatism is, after all, a choice, isn't it?

[dfwgator]

Just think of it this way, most of those gays would just as soon deny Conservatives the same benefits in order to force them out of society.

Again, they do have the same benefits, that the rest of us do, to marry a person of the opposite. If we merely base the definition of "marriage" of being with the one you love, again, that opens it up to polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, or any other abnormal arrangement you can think of.

[Yogafist]

Conseratism is not a choice. Sociologists lump me in to the group called conservative because of my beliefs, morals and convictions. I didn’t go anywhere to sign up to be conservative. We are putting the cart before the horse because the decision is not out and there may be some valid and sound reasoning, I doubt it, but who knows. Unfortunately, the courts have lost so much respect through their activism we doubt their sincerity before we know the facts.

[Nevadan]

Filo,

I hear what you are saying about the “rule of law”, but the problem is, whose “rule of law” are we talking about? By that I mean, what is the rule of law established upon anyway? If the rule of law is open to anyone’s interpretation, then the “rule of law” becomes, in my opinion, meaningless.

To put it another way, if marriage can be redefined by the courts - which is the ultimate logical consequence if Prop 8 is held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, then upon what rational basis can any kind of marriage be denied? Do the courts now define our morality and values for us? Isn’t that the consequence of of all of this?

Upon what legal basis can a Christian church refuse to perform same-sex marriages? If this Federal courts ruling stands isn’t it going to be true that people who believe homosexuality to be a sin are now legally defined as criminals because they believe something that goes against the Federal Courts opinion of what is Constitutional? I really don’t believe the so-called “separation of church and state” is going to matter much on this issue.

Ultimately, someone’s values are going to win out - unfortunately, the values of the majority of the people of California, who followed their state’s constitutional process (rule of law) lost out. This ruling has just said the majority of citizens of a State do not have the right to define what marriage is based on their moral values - no, this court has ruled on a practical level that only the Federal Courts can do that.

Our “rights” are rapidly being established upon a foundation of sand - the whims of judicial fiat.