Redstate

....in protecting traditional marriage. Yet another general election issue neutralized by Mr. Maverick, along with domestic energy production.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

It runs on the Queen's Royal Bush Bashing rules.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Or, if something happens long enough to enough people, it officially changes status to "Traditional"?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I thought better of you than that. You just get completely unhinged when we talk about these freako issues. I don't get it.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...means different things to different people, I guess.

Getting a divorce in April and remarried in May could strike some as not terribly traditional.

But, again, if enough people do enough of a thing enough times... it becomes a tradition, I guess.

I'm still married to my first spouse.

How long until that isn't traditional anymore?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965334/posts

I was recalling the event 4 years ago when he spoke out against the GOP attempts to push the FMA.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I don't support FMA at this time either. DOMA is still held as constitutional and as long as the states are passing their own constitutional amendments against it, I'm fine with that. If that situation changes (and with this ruling, it might), then we'll probably easily pass a FMA.

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

McCain: Same-sex marriage ban is un-Republican.

All it takes is one ad on abortion and it's over.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

A legislature cannot, nor can the electorate on a referendum, create a law that violates the constitution of a state. The same applies to Congress and the US Constitution. If you want to stop gay marriage, then you will need a constitutional amendment. That's not likely to happen in California and it's not likely to happen to the US Constitution either.

a federal regulation on preserving humming bees can trump the California state constitution.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Congress cannot make laws that violate it. State Constitutions cannot deny rights granted by the US Constitution. And, state legislatures cannot make laws that violate their own state constitutions or the Constitution of the United States.

are relatively easy to do.

A typical process would be:
State Legislature approves (some require only a 50% +1 majority)
Public referendum

Michigan recently enacted a ban on affirmative action this way.

State-level constitutional amendments are a great way to go.

to ban same-sex marriage. I wouldn't support it but I live in Illinois so I have no say in the matter. If Californians vote to change their constitution to ban same sex marriage and then the court tries to enact same sex marriage by judicial fiat, I will come to the defense of the voters of California, despite my own feelings on the subject.

If you buy into the premise that liberals get to enact policy by judicial fiat, and that only conservatives are required to go through the process of amending the constitution, then you are buying into a whack-a-mole problem.

A Supreme Court can do wrong far more easily than the public can rectify those wrongs.

I support the law. That means that Liberal judges don't get to make laws but it also means that Conservative legislatures and voters don't get to make laws that are unconstitutional. Feel free to flip Liberal and Conservative above as I believe this works both ways. If the voters of a state want to change their constitution and their change doesn't violate the US Constitution, then they are free to do so.

The state constitutional amendment process varies hugely state by state. It is one of the reasons pro-gray marriage advocates targeted MA. Remember that before MA they had won some judicial victories in other states by then were always thwarted by state constitutional amendments. They knew this was much harder to do in MA. The whole goal has been to force it through judges in one state and then spread it to other states through the consent(?) clause.

It is the FF&C clause.

I'd say we need to democratize the courts now. So, when morons like those in the Cali SC can be held accountable to the people when they DICTATE the law. This Aristocracy must be destroyed once and for all time!

CA citizens vote up or down on whether appointed justices should remain on the court... This is the same argument that was used by redstaters in an attempt to prove that Janice Rogers Brown was in the mainstream, since even liberal CA didn't have a problem voting for her.

6 out of 7 justices on the CA Supreme Court are Republican appointees. They're a moderate court and they made the same decision that a lot of moderate courts are going to be making over the next decade.

they made the same decision that a lot of moderate courts are going to be making

I am not a lawyer so cannot assess this, but to the extent the decision is well-grounded in the California constitution, I don't have a problem with it. What I want from 'conservative judges' is not legal chicanery in favor of conservative politics, but no chicanery and no politics. I want judges to follow the law, not make stuff up to justify imposing their will on the rest of us, even if their 'druthers are the same as mine.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The ruling said that you cannot limit marriage just between and man and a woman, so thusly, a person could marry themselves, a sister, a brother, a dog, or their work

BTW, cousins can already marry in California

Just because that makes sense doesn't mean the left will pull it off anyway.

No. The CA Supreme Ct explicity based its ruling on sexual orientation discrimination laws. I don't think there is a sexual orientation issue at state in plural marriage or in cases involving siblings.

I wonder if it is still illegal for two people of the same sex who identify as STRAIGHT to get married though.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

BTW, cousins can already marry in California

And their children can grow up to be State Supreme Court judges...

________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.

notatool.com

The ballot initiative is doomed to fail? Maybe. My guess is that the 61-39 margin has shrunk, but by how much?

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Which "socially conservative hispanics" are currently voting for far left Democratic pro-aborts?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

and the socially conservative democrat politicians from Red districts.

All three groups vote Marxist by the end of the day.

...when it comes to gay marriage. Abortion is a 50/50 divide. Gay marriage is a 65/35 divide.

And they vote for dems because they think it would help them economically (healthcare, unions, etc). But I think the CA marriage amendment will pass overwhelmingly.

Abortion on demand is losing support especially among young voters. The access to sex education and inexpensive contraceptives have made the concept of using abortion as contraceptive is not something young people are accepting of. Whether they would support government intervention is another issue. We will have to see, but there is some hope there to limit legal abortion to the first trimester (like in Europe) and in cases where the health of the mother is involved.

On the issue of gay marriage, I think that ship has sailed. More and more statess are going to allow it and eventually, it will be "normal".

65-35 in favor?

That would require not only that the largely unmarried 18-29 year olds do not change their opinion if they get married and/or have kids (it would be nice if it were an "and"), but also that their enthusiasm for such redefinition of marriage will increase.

"In polls of young adults, support for gay marriage ranges from 42 to 56 percent."

http://www.mobilize.org/index.php?tray=content&tid=top530&cid=dc18

The liberals know they won't get a bare majority in 20 years among the people at large. But they don't need that--just a significantly large minority to undermine any resistance to their judicial dictatorship.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

If you can, the FMA is a losing proposition.

And we're not talking a small loss either. We're talking a crash/burn loss.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If it's done by the state legislatures--all but the 21st Amendment, it doesn't have a chance. If by state ratifying conventions, chosen by the people for that particular purpose, I suspect it could, even in California.

However, getting it proposed in the first place is the tough one. Won't get it through any conceivable Congress in the next few years, at least. Would require 2/3 of the state legislature to propose it. Unlikely unless the Supreme Court imposes it nationally.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

New York, New Jersey, Delware, and Maryland alone makes 14. I can imagine that several upper Midwestern states would oppose it as well. An amendment isn't going to pass.

Not only that, but the Defense of Marriage Act is unlikely to be upheld, even by a conservative Supreme Court. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is tough to get around.

Gay marriage is here to stay.

If the people in New York, New Jersey, etc. were so in favor of gay marriage, it would have passed by now legislatively in all those states.

As for the Full, Faith, and Credit Clause, the argument is extremely weak. Not only do you have the public policy exception (a million precedents in favor of this, including nothern states refusing to recognize the validity of slavery in the South), but federal DOMA represents an exercise of Congress's regulatory power over such interstate recognition.

I agree for the foreseeable future, it's here to stay in Massachusetts.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

but their legislatures aren't against it enough to pass a federal amendment.

You may be right about the public policy exception, though. I still wouldn't give the Defense of Marriage Act more than a %50 chance of holding up, even in a conservative court.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

State conventions are called by the governors. If the governor refuses to call a convention, then none convenes. Good luck getting three-fourths of governors to even call a convention, and, even if they did, getting those states to all elect pro-amendment representatives to said conventions.

There's a reason this has only happened once.

I would give DOMA - at least the portion that allows states to refuse recognition to gay marriages - a very good chance to pass muster. No state is required to recognize any out-of-state marriage based on Full Faith and Credit. The FF&C clause is about judicial orders and judgments. Marriage is not a judicial order or judgment - it is a permitted/licensed activity. While a divorce decree comes from a court, a marriage license comes from a clerk.

If FF&C requires a state to recognize a marriage license, why would it not require every state to recognize a concealed carry permit? Why not require everyone to recognize my law licenses?

Black letter law - taught to every kid taking the New York Bar Exam - is that the state is not required to recognize a marriage that is counter to the public policy of the state. That conclusion has never been overturned by a federal court claiming that FF&C requires such recognition. I'm not sure why everybody automatically takes as gospel the claims of the Left that the FF&C clause means what THEY say it means. Do some homework and learn the law - or ask someone who does know it befire you shoot your mouth off about what is and isn't the law.

I was merely basing my opinion on the way things seem to be moving.

If I understand you, though, not only is the relevant portion of the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional, but it is also redundant (i.e. the public policy exception makes the DOMA unneccesary). Is this, in your opinion, correct?

....it would be constitutional. And it is probably redundant. But it could be said that the public policy exception is of judicial origin - this would be a legislative pronouncement that they agree with that construction of the clause. Having the legislature (and the executive who assented by signing DOMA) weigh in expressly is never a bad thing.

However, I will add that I do not believe that the federal definition of marriage in DOMA is constitutional. But I seem to have in mind that a federal court has already upheld that provision once - as long as it is limited to only federal laws. Personally, I don't want Congress deciding what is and isn't a marriage. It leaves open the door for Congress to decide that, state laws notwithstanding, a marriage of first cousins will not be valid, or a marriage to someone under 17, or a marriage to someone who isn't mentally capable of entering into a marriage. When Congress is deemed to have the power to decide what is a marriage on one issue, they inherently have the power for any issue that they feel strongly enough about. No person that believes in limiting the feds to their Constitutionally-given powers can believe that marriage is fair game for federal regulation.

decades ago

your optimism may be folly

unless its the present roberts-alito court plus one more

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The big difference between Prop. 22 and the one that will be on the November ballot is that Prop. 22 was meant to stop the redefinition of marriage and to not extend it. The upcoming initiative would itself re-redefine marriage, LIMIT what people will now be able to do (i.e. take away their court granted CIVIL rights).

People will not take it away because they won't see any reason to take away what people will not legally enjoy.

The battle for gay marriage in California is over. A defeat for a DOMA initiative in California will be the last nail in the coffin.

It ain't over until the people say it's over.

And the definition of marriage is the same as in prop 22: between a man and a woman.

Liberals will lose at the end of the day.

PARA LA FAMILIA!!!!!!!!!!

A defeat of November DOMA initiative would mean that it is over, as the people themselves would have supported the court mandated position

mobilization when californians get angry. Prop 22 will be nothing compared to what we will do in November. Take it to the bank. This is a major major poke in the eye and it comes at just the right time.

I predict McCain will win CA just because of this issue. Hispanics like him anyways to begin with, and this is will be a final straw in effecting:

1) the success of the California Marriage Act
2) the victory of McCain / Huckabee in 2008

If gay marriage is in your Top 10 most important issues facing America, there's no way you were voting for Obama to begin with. McCain can't win CA, but it may help his cause with social conservatives who dislike change even more than they dislike him.

Although, I'm pretty sure McCain voted against FMA, so he'd probably just get hit for flip-flopping if he brought it up.

The people of MA refused to overturn their Supreme Court's decision... I think it's incredibly optimistic of you to expect a different result here.

The people of Massachusetts never got a direct vote on their Supreme Court decision. Their elected representatives kept it from a popular vote. After a lot of heated rhetoric, things seemed to have calmed down. This is probably the result of the lack of a stampede of pet owners rushing to marry their dogs and cats, as so many traditional marriage proponents imagined.

The California vote will be unique because (1) there is an example in Massachusetts and the sky has not fallen and (2) it would be one of the few (only?) times people would be voting to take away a right. I think that's a tougher sell for the Campaign of Fear, but it will probably be a very close vote.

If the CA referendum was in June instead of November, I'd say it had a great chance. The blowout victory for Prop. 22 occurred in March, after all.

It's been 8 years, plus Massachusetts and Canada and a lot of compelling personal stories shown on the local news. Then you have the Barack Obama youth turnout. It will be closer than the presidential popular vote in CA, probably, but that's not saying much.

Really? I'd say it's 50-50.

Both Alaska and Hawaii's referenda 10 years ago were passed following court rulings.

Even if the DOMA fails in California, in how many years do you think that all the believing Jews, Christians, and Muslims in America will just shrug their shoulders and say, Oh, OK, marriage is just about "coupling."

Sounds like what commentators said about abortion in 1973, or even 1992.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

that referendum in deciding to confer State HI benefits to same-sex couples, absolutely turned it on its head by concluding that the amendment did indeed prohibit benefits to unmarried heterosexual partners but that the due process clause required that benefits be conferred on unmarried homosexual partners.

In Vino Veritas

Who cares? Does the Federal Government really needed to expanded? Does it not have enough to do?

MA has gay marriage and lower divorce rates than plenty of states where there is no gay marriage.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

I've lived in MA, and one of hte reasons MA has a lower divorce rate is that people don't marry, they just live together. People who do marry are probably more religious, and those that aren't are more educated and get married later in life, which is good wisdom that lessens the chance of divorce.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

Article 1 talks about Rights.

Section 3, (2) says this:

A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.

If I had to guess, I'd put it there... but I haven't spent more than a couple minutes with it and I haven't read the decision yet.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Marriage is unimportant?

Good news? Not if you (1) believe in traditional marriage, or, (2) believe in the right of self-government.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

But there's a 50% divorce rate anyway.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"People who support gay marriage point to the number of straight people living in sham marriages, but let's not bring the Clintons into this."

The ruling, however, is pretty much as expected. And, as far as I know, the Constitutional amendment process for the State of California would make it almost impossible to change. So forget about that right now.

I'd make some more wisecracks about the decision, but I think they might be in somewhat bad taste for the decorum of this site... with the exception of my brother's weird advice on how to turn such a decision into a Pyrrhic victory:

"Sure, you can make gay marriage legal... but you didn't say anything about legalizing gay divorce!"

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

I support gay marriage.

Someone else points out how Marriage is a Sacrament or Heterosexual Marriage is The Foundation of the Traditional Family and NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED.

And *THEN* the person who supports gay marriage points out the divorce rate among those who argue that Marriage is a Sacrament or whathaveyou.

The unitive function of marriage is attainable to homosexuals. Sure, they can't attain the procreative... but there is a huge number of marriages out there that are only good at the procreative but horrid at the unitive.

We need more positive goods at the moment. The unitive function of marriage is a positive good.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

1. First, you use a strawman. Who is arguing that marriage was just fine and dandy until the courts tried to redefine it. Of course it's terrible shape.

Moreover, you make an empirical claim that is probably false: the divorce rate is 50% not only among the population at large, but also among those persons most strenously trying to preserve AND strengthen the institution of marriage. Do you know that divorce is just as prevalent among believing, practicing Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc? I highly doubt it.

2. Unitive is not possible among homosexuals, because homosexual act(s) involves contact, but not organic unity. To the extent there is genuine friendship between such persons (and there surely is in many cases), the fact that they also regularly engage in various acts of mutual masturbation does not make that friendship particularly "unitive."

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

"Do you know that divorce is just as prevalent among believing, practicing Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc?"

Um, that's what the numbers say.

Well, people who profess to be such, anyway. This was actually a big scandal within the church in the 80's, how the divorce rate within the church was pretty much the same as without.

Now, of course, you can point out that there are plenty of people who go to church but are merely whited sepulchers and I will agree with you 100%.

As for your #2, I'll just say that you're assuming facts not in evidence.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Yes, I'm familiar with the polls asking self-described born-again Christians about this, etc.

I would prefer a poll among persons who profess to believe that marriage is for life. Not exactly the distinction you were drawing in referring to "whited sepulchers."

In any case, the fact that the respondents to these polls adhere to a nametag--much like Nancy Pelosi et al. clinging to the nametag "Catholic"--makes the poll weak as a refutation of my claim that is not only supported by my own (infallible) anecdotal experience, but also rests on the intuition that ideas have consequences.

As to the facts I have assumed, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I suspect that any further argument as to the positive value of homosexual acts is likely to end, as if often does here, in mutual exchange of accusations of delusion and blindness.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

I'd say that the people who have never been divorced would be a lot more likely to argue that marriage is for life than those who had been divorced before.

Though there probably is a number of people who have been divorced before who would explain that marriage is for life, but my circumstances are extraordinary so you shouldn't hold my decisions against me, as you would have done the exact same thing in my place, and anyway, judge not, etc...

But, if I had to guess, I'd say that the folks who have never been divorced will be a lot less understanding of divorce and those who have would be a lot more understanding of it.

I don't find this particular insight particularly interesting, however.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Because we know that Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer would not find an emanating right for homosexuals to marry in the penumbra. And Kennedy would never want to write the majority opinion with the far-left thus making himself appear very important and learned to his European summer friends. Nope! No way, would never happen. That's why SENATOR McCain saw no reason to support the Constitutional Amendment.

.....for the same reason I do. It is totally counter to every principle of federalism the conservative movement claims to stand for. Marriage is NOT NOT NOT a federal power. It shouldn't be defined by the federal government, and I'm not sure where Congress gets off on thinking that it should be.

DOMA is the law. To date, as far as I know, it hasn't even been challenged in a court, let alone struck down. That law so far, has been sufficient to prevent federal judicial action. What state courts do under their own laws and constitutions on the issue is not a matter that the feds should step in on. If the people of California want to do nothing, that's their business. The rest of us still have the capacity to effect the laws in our own states.

McCain did not believe that the marriage amendment was a necessary imposition at this point. And given the way it is written I don't believe it is either necessary or good policy either. This is part of why the Party is having problems. Some social conservatives seem all to willing to abandon some of the base principle when it suits their outcome preference. Federalism needs to be the guiding principle, and conservatives should not be so quick to run to Congress and the feds when they don't get what they want. If we do that, we are no better than the liberals who attempt to do at the federal level what they can't get people back home to support.

Does support for the Second Amendment mean that gun-rights people are anti-federalists?

The Second Amendment, by definition, make gun ownership a Federal issue.

I don't see anything in the Constitution preempting the definition and licensing of marriage, which has always been a State governmental function. DOMA deals with regulating the relationships between states, which again by defintion is a federal matter.

So where is the violation of federalism taking place?

And Rightly So!

This thread is talking about the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Some are arguing that we can't have FMA because it violates federalism. Federalism, however, is not the be-all and end-all principle of the constitution.

It's the putting of the head in the sand to ignore that the ONLY reason the homosexual activist have not challenged DOMA is because they are not 100% sure that Kennedy will join Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. If Kennedy (or Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Roberts) are replaced, no reasonable person would not understand that DOMA would fall and a constitutional right emanating from the penumbra would be created.

That is why I supported the Amendment. Yeah! Yeah! to federalism, but the issue is too important to one day soon look-back on and say, well we lost and we KNEW we were going to lose, and just like abortion the Court has hoisted abortion on all 50 states, but by gosh I stood by my federalism principles.

I think its time to take the gloves off with homosexuals. For too long we have allowed the word "gay" to be used and for this group to be looked upon as just your normal everyday folk who just happened to have sexual relations with the same sex. We have refrained because we preferred to live in a G or PG world, it's now time to really discuss as graphically as necessary the perversity of this lifestyle.

"Good news? Not if you (1) believe in traditional marriage"

So straights can't marry now?

Personally, I hate that it was imposed by a 4-3 court decision after it lost nearly 2-1 in a popular vote of the people. But practically, I don't give a rat's rear. Doesn't affect me at all. All the family values in the world won't end the war or get gas under $2/gallon.

Good campaign issue for McCain tho, s'long as he doesn't overplay his hand. Simply say, "this is just another example of social engineering better left to the people" and move on.

Be interesting to see what happens when those judges come up for re-election. Also interesting that Corrigan, the "moderate" who replaced JRB, dissented.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Sorry, but you are. If you don't understand, if you haven't noticed that we can only put things behind us with political solutions, rather than through judicial dictates, then your critical thinking skills do not exist.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

a case of the court creating laws. Rather, it is simply interpreting the state's constitution. The solution though is to simply change the Constitution of the State of California and the US Constitution. That is the democratic solution to this (if you are one who thinks this needs solving). I don't think that's going to happen. So, let's move on. If you don't want to marry a dude, then don't.

If they correctly interpretted their state's Constitution then your whole argument is irrelevant.

if we want to be considered a Republic consisting of free people

Too bad it won't really make you go away, though...

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

but I'm not clear on whether by the mullahcracy or by the legislature.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

...have same-sex marriage. Only MA and now CA have marriage. And both were judicially imposed. Hawaii actually has a constitutional amendment. They were the first proof of the stupidity of the gay Left. The Gay Left went to Hawaii first to get a court decision thinking it was a liberal state and they'd have success. They won the court case, but the voters turned around and changed the constitution to eliminate the basis for the court decision. Of course, almost 40 state marriage amendments hasn't stopped the gay Left in its belief that the answer is the courts.

CT has legislatively created civil unions. They may be the only ones - though I don't recall if there was a NJ marriage case before or after they decided to create a civil union deal. VT, of course, was judicially catalyzed, though it was a legislative enactment - the court required them to go with marriage or civil unions.

...has been granting civil unions since 2005 with nobody particularly giving a tinker's dam. Funny how that happens when you do this sort of thing via the legislature.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it stating that it should be left to the courts to decide the issue. So it's unfair to say now, after the issue has been decided by the courts, that gay marriage should be decided by the legislature.

Do we look like Arnold Schwarzenegger to you?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

So, question : are they calling it civil unions or coopting the term 'marriage'? I think the civil union thing encounters considerably less opposition. In my opinion anyway, since I'm fairly serious soCon, and I don't have any objection to civil unions.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

I do not believe the statutory language coopts the term marriage. However, I would guess the laziness of legislators means that the civil union law had a provision that basically amended all of the state's laws such that in any place where there was a reference to "marriage" it will not say "marriage or civil union" and "husband and wife" will become "spouses" or some other neutered terminology.

In effect, civil unions are only marriage by a different name - they come with all of the privileges and responsibilities that married couples have in the state.

Discriminating on the basis of foreign origin, or lack of one, is unacceptable in Modern, Diverse America.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

might was well go for the most important job in the land, you know, where the real decisions are made

There is no federal appeal of this. The only federal clause that could conceivably be used in this instance - where a state court is interpreting the state constitution for state law purposes - is the "republican government" clause whereby the federal government is supposed to guarantee to the states a republican form of government.

However, the SCOTUS long ago decided that the clause has no judicial function - the courts will not, and cannot, evaluate the question of what is a republican form of government and are not empowered to "remedy" any breach of that form even if they find it. It is a political question left within the complete discretion of the other two branches.