This is a civil rights issue.  I don't want the state to have the right to tyrannize a minority.  Funny how civil rights and constitutions don't matter to you.  When it's the gays, those concepts are just outdated.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachussetts and it was just legalized in Connecticut.  And Florida just made it legal for same-sex couples to adopt.  This is a global civil rights movement that's been going on for over a century, and it's making some real progress in America.  It was only 30 years ago when they tried to make it illegal in California for gays to teach kids in schools, because "oh noes they'll convert teh kidz!"

These people who can magically "choose" their sexuality... do have a hardwired sexuality.  They're bisexual, and didn't know it yet, so they had more of a sexuality window to experiment in than most people.

Regardless, it seems more important that the laws stay consistant.  Otherwise it can lead to further breaches of civil rights later.

Like how everyone is afraind more conservative judges on the SC might overturn Roe V Wade.

Why the heck should the Supreme Court be able to overturn a previous decision?

For the laws to be consistent we can't have sexuality in our equal protection clause at the same time as having a constitutional amendment that discriminates based on sexuality.

I think the Supreme Court should be able to overturn previous decisions because our body of law is a fickle constantly evolving monster, and it has made many mistakes along the way (especially regarding slavery and discrimination).

It was the opinion of the California Supreme Court in May that the government can't discriminate based on sexuality, and in their official statement they said that for marriage to be constitutional at all, it has to be for everybody or nobody, and that whenever a similar issue comes up, there is legal precedent to grant the right to everybody rather than take it away from everybody.  It's always been easier to extend rights to more groups than to take them away.

Nope, I am on your side on this issue. I however, think the Constitution and States Rights matter, for all things.

There wasn't any changes regarding slavery or discrimination.

Slavery was specifically repealed via presidential act.

Discrimination was handled by the equal rights ammendment.

The California equal rights ammendment wouldn't make any difference since we already have the US one in which it is illegal to discriminate via sexual orientation. (to my knowledge.)

Once again (while for gay marriage.)  I don't see the difference between marriages and Civil unions and mens and womens sports... and a number of other things i'd label as dicrimination.  These things should be forced through legally.

I mean what the heck, it's california.  How can California not push this through aren't you guys supposed to have some really leftwing polticians?

If things are bended for good, they can also be bended for bad.  With no checks against it either way.

I'm definitely against overturning Roe v. Wade, but 5-4 decisions are prime targets for being overrturned, especially if the times have significantly changed.

I'm glad the Supreme Court overturns older decisions its made, otherwise our laws would be a complete mess.  For instance, if the Supreme Court had never overturned Swift v. Tyson, state law would be something that federal courts could flat out ignore.  This is no longer the case after the Erie decision where federal courts HAVE to apply that states law when the state's law is applicable to the case.

Couldn't that have been changed via say... actual legislation?

I think letting the courts change the deicsions let politicans off the hook for making important yet unpopular decisions.

Bad politicans are smart people who do dumb things for bribes and reelections.

Why worry about gay rights legislation when we can wait for the courts to do it?  I mean they don't need reelection!

Good polticians seem to be the people who do dumb things simply for reelection now a days.

As simple as it sounds something like this would solve the issue for probably 95% percent of people against gay marriage. Make civil unions or "smarriages" have absolutely the same rights that man & woman marriage has. IMO most anti-gay marriage people out there believe that gay marriage somehow intrudes on religion. Whether you agree or not thats how a lot of religious people feel and I'm kind of one of them.

The Supreme Court was already interpreting a piece of legislation.  And you underestimate how slow Congress can be to respond to a problem, and how willing the Supreme Court can be to strike down Congress's obtuse attempts to get around the Supreme Court's decisions.

Sometimes judges have to make those unpopular decisions.  That is one of the reasons why they in most cases aren't elected officials.  They are there to be the arbiters of the law and the Constitution, even if that means going against popular opinion.  I'm all for politicians who have there act together and aren't afraid to stand up for the issues they believe in, but the American public is about as fickle as it can be.  I'm not excusing politicians, but we are as much to blame as anyone for their shortcomings.  I mean we elect them every year after all.