The constitution is what matters, not trying to guess what some long dead dudes would think of modern day issues.

And I am pretty sure the long-dead dudes built the constitution so that it did not matter what they thought...

What Sophia said - plus I don't think that the Constitution actually mentions opposite sex marriage either.

Gud is super awesome, pass it on. (out of respect for Mrs. Gud I refrained from posting my real thoughts of WANT TO MARRY GUD - oops, I guess I just posted them anyway).

You know what else is interesting- All the online dictionaries have "between a man and a woman" in their dictionary definition of the word marriage (now some of them have a secondary definition of 'between two people of the same sex, like a traditional marriage'). My older dictionary does not mention it-- it just says "the act of marrying" and "an intimate union".

A contrary opinion:

How Much Do the Factual Findings Matter in Perry v. Schwarzenegger?

The question is, how much will those factual findings matter on appeal?

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, I don’t think the factual record will matter very much. I think that for three main reasons. First, the Justices will know that this case presents a defining moment for their respective tenures on the Court. This will be one of the biggest decisions of their careers, and its importance transcends a single trial before a single judge with a particular set of witnesses. These sorts of mega-big-picture cases tend rest less on the details of the factual record than other cases. Second, the Justices will certainly recognize the same point that Dahlia Lithwick and the Sullivan commenter made — that is, Judge Walker was trying to use his facts to make an argument designed to persuade the Justices to agree with him. For better or worse, I suspect a majority of the Justices will respond to that dynamic by significantly discounting those facts.

I am REALLY cranky today, but I want to throttle my boss for telling someone to type in "H-T-T-P-colon-Backslash-Backlash"

At this level law is politics. I will be really surprised if this is not overturned either on immediate appeal or by the Supreme Court. I hope I'm wrong. I'm not basing this on the law but on judicial bias.

Scalia's *dissent* in Lawrence v Texas actually supports (quite snarkily) the premise that there is no logical or legal reason to prohibit gay marriage:

c. Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558, 604-05 (2003) (Scalia, J, dissenting) (“If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”)

That dissent is, at the very least, going to make it difficult for the SCOTUS to turn around and overturn this ruling.

A boss from hell:

Oil company owner's aggressive memos from late 1970s

“On days when you have to work, and you think you should be off, you wear slouchy dress attire. That will not occur in the future. You will wear proper dress attire to work always. Also, all employees should have the proper attitude to coincide with proper dress, especially on those days when you’re working and think you should be off.”

“Idle conversation and gossip in this office among employees will result in immediate termination. Don’t talk about other people and other things in this office. DO YOUR JOB AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!”

“Do not speak to me when you see me. If I want to speak to you, I will do so. I want to save my throat. I don’t want to ruin it by saying hello to all of you sons-of-bitches.”

“Per Edward Mike Davis’ orders, there will be no more birthday celebrations, birthday cakes, levity, or celebrations of any kind within the office.”

I don't actually want to live in a democracy; I want to live in what the U.S. was designed to be: a republic. To me, the proposition system in California is not a good thing, because it is pure democracy, unfettered by a legislative system that can look at the larger issues, such as "Won't freezing property taxes ultimately make it difficult to fund educating?" What the founding fathers did fear was mobacracy.

I would argue that is is important to look at the intentions of the founders, and that rooting our legal system in a fixed document that was largely designed to protect us from the government and from mob rule. The reasonable thing to do is to apply the concepts to 21st century reality, e.g., is intercepting e-mail unreasonable search and seizure.

The problem with the yahoos who are always nattering on about the founders is that they don't know who the hell the founders were or what the Constitution says. They have a vague notion that the Pilgrims wrote the constitution to create a Christian government that protects their rights while abusing the rights of people not like them.

Gazes in delight at Ginger's spicy brain.