I'm sorry for killing the thread. My anger is down to a simmer now. Guess I'm pulling out the old posters for yet another protest tonight.

Teppy, not at all. Totally not inappropriate or anything close to it.

Okay. I just posted and then you posted and said "eff off," and I assumed you meant *I* should eff off.

Sorry about that. Totally not directed at you - was directed at CA Supreme Court. Edited so as not to confuse anyone else.

As much as I think it sucks, I believe I understand the logic behind the decision. Existing marriages were grandfathered in before prop 8.

I also think that because the margin was so close in the November election and so much of the prop 8 campaign was based on lies and the anti prop 8 camp has grown so much that it is highly unlikely it'll stand up to another popular vote.

Guess I'm pulling out the old posters for yet another protest tonight.

So yeah. We gotta keep fighting. But I'm also in favor of a small celebration for existing marriages. Yay for one small step!

Glamcookie, as someone who's fortunate enough to live in a country with civil partnerships (not good enough, but at least it gives most of the rights of marriage), I can imagine how frustrated you must be. Do you have a group to protest with? I hope it goes well.

This makes me want to hurry up and sign the register (which The Girl & I are probably doing this autumn). You never know when your civil rights are going to be rescinded.

And, GC, don't apologize for thread killing! You are supposed to be angry.

Existing marriages were grandfathered in before prop 8.

I haven't seen the opinion so I don't know but this just seems like the coward's way out of the problem. (Not that you are defending it, so I'm not attacking you.) But it just seems like they are throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "Well, it's the constitution! We can't change it! Nothing wrong with gay marriage in and of itself, but the people have spoken." Which totally sidesteps all issues of whether marriage is a fundamental right to be enjoyed by all. Which is suppose is what courts do in this case, but it just bothers me, because they are deciding without really deciding.

eta: because apostrophes are important, even when angry

Existing marriages were grandfathered in before prop 8.

I haven't seen the opinion so I don't know but this just seems like the coward's way out of the problem.

Yeah, I think they didn't want to see the tons of cases that would be filed if they invalidated existing marriages. And in a warped way, I'm pissed they denied us that fight.

But it just seems like they are throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "Well, it's the constitution! We can't change it! Nothing wrong with gay marriage in and of itself, but the people have spoken."

I can only wonder whether the Supremes would say the same thing about a proposition amending the state constitution to provide that the term "religion" does not include, say, Mormonism.

One of my co-workers -- hand to god -- want to know why, if it's discriminatory to prohibit gay marriage, it's NOT discriminatory to prohibit siblings from marrying.

IOW, if 2 siblings are consenting (non-gay) adults, why can't they get married? I mentioned babies with 9 heads, and he said, "Fine -- why can't sterile siblings who are consenting adults get married? Not allowing them to marry is discriminatory."

I couldn't marshal an effective rebuttal because my jaw was still on the floor.