Not most. I think they’re worried about the institution of marriage falling apart. (I’m talking about the heartland voters, not the scumbag leaders like Rick Santorum.) To them, gay marriage is just the final straw that unravels the institution of marriage.

Why they think gay marriage contributes to the collapse of marriage is a mystery. Since they think gays control the media, Hollywood, TV, pop music, everything — why not give gays a stake in the institution of marriage?

But I hope we learn our lesson that the courts are not the answer. Courts did not abolish slavery. Courts did not grant suffrage. ‘We The People’ did that. Courts play only a minor role in freedom movements.

Americans in the heartland are no more bigoted than anyone else. They are just behind the curve. We have to man up and come out of the damn closet–everywhere. Our rights have always been in direct proportion to our outness. The heartland will come around.

The federal courts will be compelled to hear this challenge and perhaps there will be a different decision.

it’s absolutely insane that in the United States people can have a vote to take away other people’s rights. You shouldn’t be able to have that kind of vote.

Why can people just not live and let live and allow others live the way they choose?

I find the increasing numbers of referenda to be troubling. I prefer representative government — it’s more accountable and less subject to fickleness and whimsy. Who’s held accountable when referenda become law but end up causing more problems than they solve? And now, with states suffering so much from the bad economy and looking for ways to trim their budgets, eliminating benefits to partners is probably attractive, even welcome.

I complain as much as anyone about politicians. Yet as loathsome as they can be, I prefer them to mob rule.

It is helpful to understand that the legal question was about how the California Constitution may be amended, not LGBT unions.

The fact that the court let stand the 18,000 unions, indicates that in no uncertian terms this is a untenable leglal remedy. It is not constitutional in that it violates “equal protection under the law”, as other people do not have the civil rights that others have and are judged to be unequal.

This will come up from the lower courts but when I see Buois and Olsen team up on something that is a lot of juice.

It is what can be expected when the issue pushed be it is legally mature.

To me it’s absolutely insane that in the United States people can have a vote to take away other people’s rights. You shouldn’t be able to have that kind of vote.

Think about a scenario where there’s a vote about whether black people and white people can marry? Would that fly with anyone? Not now… But who knows maybe in some really backwards state such a vote would be close! But would they have the right to even have such a vote? I don’t think so. I hope the Supreme Court overturns the whole thing and says that you can’t even have that kind of vote in the first place.