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 You never know when your civil rights are going to be rescinded.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.

I think siblings marrying is gross but I believe they should have the right to do so.

I hate that idiotic analogy opponents of gay marriage make. First you allow gay marriage and then the slope slips to allow siblings or animals or children or whatever.

WHAT KIND OF HALF-ASSED DECISION IS THIS? It's almost more enraging than the proposition itself.

As glad as I am the current marriages stand, I just want someone somewhere to make sense out of this.

I think siblings marrying is gross but I believe they should have the right to do so.

I'm honestly curious: why?

I just called Dan Savage. I'm a little worried for our cause. I get email from three different organizations and I've signed up with two of them to become a volunteer but never heard back. I wondered if Dan has the power to help us unite under a common banner.