Words can't describe how this makes me feel.

California clings to the discriminatory and bigoted views people were stupid enough to endorse in the first place and I'm a little surprised by how much I don't care. I pretty much expect nothing from these idiots for the time being so my thoughts are "whatever."

At least New England is on the right track.

how disappointing.

Had some interesting discussion on the issue. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all the specifics but from my interpretation/reading I'm in agreement that this really was "lose/lose".

If they were to strike it down, wouldn't they essentially be saying that the initiative process is not good and thus is subject to a panel of judges, which is what the initiative process sought to provide a solution to? I'm not sure if that was worded properly.

Has there every been any precedence of a state SC overrulling a constitutional amendment? Whether or not I agree with the proposition, the fact is that it was passed fairly, and the best way to overturn it is through another initiative.

And then they did allow the existing marriages to stand, because they were legal (and voiding them would have been one hell of a mess for the county clerk's offices). But now what happens if they want to get divorced? Can they get divorced? Eeek, complicated.

Anyway, I'm disappointed that in 2009 we still don't have full equality (and I'm not referring just to gay rights, this is a broad statement). I'm disappointed that people still have to go out and "protest this crap" as one of my favorite signs said. I certainly would like to be seen as an "equal citizen", so that is where my disappointment lies but then it is hard to say I would want the SC to overrule the will of the people ... I don't know if I'm making any sense here, I'm totally conflicted.

The whole situation is rather absurd, when you think about it. The ruling allows those who married while it was legal to stay married, but nobody else is allowed to get married. So, those gay people who remain married in California are not a "threat" to the institution of marriage, but if anyone else were to get "gay married" it would be wrong and make that institution falter? I think that this just points to how really silly and inconsequential this whole legal hoopla is. There are people currently "gay married" in California, and the world isn't coming to an end. The solution is so obvious: let's just give everyone the right to marry and move on already. What a waste of the public discourse this is. We have more serious things on which to focus.

Peace,
Mike

The only thing with your statement is that I don't think the courts ever viewed gay marriage as a "threat to marriage". Remember, this is the same court that legalized it back in May of 2008. Rather, the court this time had to choose whether or not the initiative process in California was properly used, which in all honesty, it was (though there is the debate about the majority removing rights or perceived rights from a minority/targeted group).

I think if the courts could have overturned it they would have but to be honest, that would have set a very dangerous precedent.

And the marriages that were already performed were legal and valid.