The US Supreme Court would probably not accept such a case, and Obama will probably never get a chance to change the balance of the Court, unless Justice Kennedy retires.  Obama will more likely get a chance to replace Ginsburg and Stevens, who are the most liberal justices.

It is interesting that the challengers of the proposition may have a point.  Same-sex marriage has been considered a fundamental right in California.  That is what the controversy is all about.  If California law requires that amendments affecting a fundamental right must first be approved by the legislature before going to the general public, then the proposition could be invalidated by the California SC.  I was unaware that this was a possibility, but it would be very good news if it is true.  The whole purpose of such a requirement would be to protect the rights of minorities against attempts by a majority to suppress them.  For example, one apparently cannot float a proposition in California to restrict the use of certain public drinking fountains to whites only.  Such an amendment would be invalidated by the US Supreme Court, as well, but marriage laws are considered matters governed by state law.

My own position on this is strictly libertarian.  That is, I think that the government should regulate civil unions, because civil unions are legal contracts that affect the rights of others.  Marriage, on the other hand, is not something that the government should have anything to do with.  Let churches establish their own doctrines on what constitutes a marriage consistent with religious doctrines.  Let them conduct marriage ceremonies according to their own principles.  Let others, including gays, define marriage as they see fit.  Get the government out of the bedroom and out of consensual relationships.  Governments are necessary to define and enforce contractual arrangements.  They are not necessary to define and enforce personal relationships.

Hehehe. The entire point of this is that it's not even a religious issue when it comes down to it. There are religious aspects, but the primary focus is that it comes down to the definition of marriage...

Exactly.  That is why the government should separate the contractual aspect of marriage, which it does have a right to regulate, from the social aspect--whether or not it refers exclusively to a heterosexual relationship.

And even in a liberal state it has been decided that marriage is as it has always been understood to be. Same-sex marriage isn't about rights, but rather social recognition...

You are confused.  It is about rights, because same-sex partners are denied all kinds of rights--inheritance, visitation rights in hospitals, adoption rights, even when the children in question are biological offspring, etc.  Not all societies have always been as rigidly homophobic as ours, and many are even more homophobic.  Homosexuals are fighting for equal treatment under the law and...yes...a measure of social respect.  It is hard to have one without the other.

They want approval for a type of union that isn't even largely being prevented to begin with. It's just not being called what they want to call it, or recognized as legitimate or even right. And with good reasons.

They do want approval in the eyes of the law, and there are no good reasons to deny them that.  I don't think that they expect people like you to accept their lifestyle, but they can certainly win acceptance from a majority.  Times are changing.  If Americans can see past racial differences, they can learn greater tolerance of alternative lifestyles.  There will always be those who cannot get past their feelings, but attitudes change as new generations are born.

Kainos, the issue before the California courts will be whether the proposition was a legal vehicle for the California people to "speak".  If their laws guarantee that propositions proposing changes to fundamental rights must first be approved by the people's elected representatives before being submitted to a public vote, then the state of California will be compelled to follow their own law and reject the vote on the proposition as invalid.

Exactly.  That is why the government should separate the contractual aspect of marriage, which it does have a right to regulate, from the social aspect--whether or not it refers exclusively to a heterosexual relationship.

In which case there's no ground to argue when it has been regulated as only to a heterosexual relationship.

You are confused.  It is about rights, because same-sex partners are denied all kinds of rights--inheritance, visitation rights in hospitals, adoption rights, even when the children in question are biological offspring, etc.

All that is simply an offshoot from not being recognized. They want all those to apply because they want the social recognition that there is no difference in either a heterosexual union and homosexual one.

Not all societies have always been as rigidly homophobic as ours, and many are even more homophobic.  Homosexuals are fighting for equal treatment under the law and...yes...a measure of social respect.  It is hard to have one without the other.

Oh dear, a phobic! No one wants to be a phobic! *snort*

How unfortunate to your rhetoric that they do have equal treatment under the law to a certain extent. They just don't have equal treatment for an activity (a fundemental difference when comparing this issue to gender or race) that is precluded by definition. It's like saying murderers should have equal treatment. And even they do in a certain sense, but in others they don't for very obvious reasons.

They do want approval in the eyes of the law, and there are no good reasons to deny them that.  I don't think that they expect people like you to accept their lifestyle, but they can certainly win acceptance from a majority.

And they can deal with unacceptance from a majority. When they don't it's a clear case of the minority dictating to the majority.

Times are changing.  If Americans can see past racial differences, they can learn greater tolerance of alternative lifestyles.  There will always be those who cannot get past their feelings, but attitudes change as new generations are born.

Yet apparently not tolerance for those who do not tolerate it. Which is why such hypocricy makes such grandoise speaches utterly empty. Times may be changing, but it's for the worst if those who are free to pursue alternative lifestyles think that somehow entitles them to unalternative consequences and rewards.

I thought we were supposed to consider it basically a sure thing that a 72 year old was going to die in the next 4-8 years. 

  d--n! I better pick up the pace of my carousing!

lol yea, notoriously.

Thank you, Cop, for another case where you allow logic to only work in one direction.  So sad, too, because it isn't even that big of a point!