More Good Comments

Here:

In order for the court to overturn Prop 8, they would have to hold that the citizens of CA have no right to amend their state constitution. The argument that the constitution can't be amended to contradict itself holds no water, because if that were TRUE, the US constitution could not have been amended to repeal prohibition or allow blacks and women to vote. It cuts both ways.

...

First off, I'm not a CA resident and have no dog in the hunt. However, if I were in CA I would have voted "yes on 8."

Second, people did vote their conscience. To assume they did otherwise is unfair. To assume they voted in fear is also unfair. There are a lot of people opposed to gay marriage for whom it is a deeply moral and spiritual issue. Their consciences will not allow them to see gay marriage as OK. That is not bigotry, imho. It is not phobic, imho. It is just a simple difference of opinion on what is and is not the true definition of marriage.

...

1) In order for the court to overturn Prop 8, they would have to hold that the citizens of CA have no right to amend their state constitution.

Not quite. The argument is that citizens can unilaterally "amend" the Constitution but not "revise" it, and that gay marriage is such a fundamental part of the California Constitution that anything getting rid of an institution that has only existed for half a year constitutes a "revision." I don't put it past Bi-Curious George to buy that argument, but I doubt any of the other Justices will.

The argument that the constitution can't be amended to contradict itself holds no water, because if that were TRUE, the US constitution could not have been amended to repeal prohibition or allow blacks and women to vote. It cuts both ways.

True, and I'd go one better: show me a constitutional amendment that doesn't contradict the Consitution as it existed prior to the amendment, and I'll show you an illusory "amendment" that didn't amend anything at all.

Legally married gay couples who wed between May and 11/5 are still considered married, according to state Atty. General Brown.

That would be Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. Take his opinion for what it's worth, which is not much.

Prop 8 carries neither a begin date nor an ex post facto clause, so it went into effect as soon as it was declared passed, and changes the system only going forward. So these people have no standing to sue under equal protection, since they are still legally married.

Nah. Prop 8 contains no grandfather clause. It doesn't say "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, unless it was solemnized before November 4, 2008." It says "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," full stop. It doesn't matter if a marriage was solemnized in a state where gay marriage was legal then or is legal now. Gay marriages are not valid or recognized in California. No exceptions.

...

Dropping the term 'homophobia' in most discussion would be a start. There are a *lot* of people a) feel its not the govt's business what other people do in their bedrooms, b)don't wish gay people any ill,c)are willing to support civil unions of some sort but d) think it is 'wrong' or at least 'abnormal'-- for which latter position non-religious arguments can be made, e)don't buy the blanket form of the 'just made that way' argument (and think legal gay marriage would fully enable indoctrination by the public school on the issue), f) don't want a foundation of all societies, far back into prehistory, redefined so gay people can, by court order/fiat, be granted a sign of approval for their way of life by people who don't feel that way, and whom they failed to persuade.

Sorry, but gay is not the same thing as 'black', even in objective terms of evolution.

One particular gene gives immunity from malaria -- two copies of the same gene causes sickle cell anemia. The latter is collateral damage of the former -- and for the affected *individual* it is certainly not fine and dandy even if it is 'natural'. We can recognize the dysfunction of it w/o making any moral claim about the person. Another example -- some people are born blind -- do we feel the need to give them driver's licenses in the name of fairness? Or to redefine what a drivers license is so we could adopt the pretense that sighted and blind 'drivers' are the same?
Surely what might be termed 'behavioral sterility', precisely if it is involuntary, might be arguably considered a dysfunction and not within healthy variation?

People can have sincere, thoughtful arguments and disagreements without slurring the one side as 'homophobic' -- that paints their views and irrational hysteria and therefore not worth considering or engaging.

Big counter-productive mistake.

...

To keep referring to those who voted for Prop. 8 as homophobic is neither constructive nor accurate and makes about as much sense as saying those who voted against Obama are racists.

Gay marriage is not viewed as a threat to traditional marriage. It is viewed as validating a lifestyle and a choice( see Anne Heche, Julie Cypher, et al) that a majority of people view as sinful.