I guess I am one who is opposed to gay marriage, but I seldom think about the issue, and don't think the republic would crumble if it passed. Your point about activism working in both directions is well taken, and I doubt you would find a majority of people left or right who are consistent on judicial activism.

Like abortion, there is a great deal about the gay marriage issue that is a cultural marker more than a consistent principle. There are real legal and philosophical questions underlying each, but these are often submerged in a "which side are you on" mentality. Whenever one side accuses the other of hypocrisy - though the charge is often valid - a cultural marker is often not far underfoot. Hence Democratic support for intervention in the Balkans, less so in the ME.

I'm not as incensed as a lot of people, even though I oppose extending marriage to same sex couples. (If we keep fighting of who can, we will never get back to should the gummint be in that business to start with.)

The court has essentially decided that the referendum conflicts with the constitution. I think that is a bad decision, but it is the kind of decision that they are supposed to make. The proper solution to that ruling is to pass an amendment to the constitution, which now looks likely. It will all come out in the wash.

Remember, 6 of the 7 judges on the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors, and mostly conservative Republican governors. These are politically conservative judges.

I think there was a chilling effect on the opponents of the gay rights agenda following the decision by the Florida Citrus Commission to end their association with Anita Bryant.

Growing up with and among artists I was aware at an early age of there being two types of bachelor. Most people got married. Some preferred the company of women without the concommitant pledge of troth. Others preferred keeping company with likeminded thinkers.

The problem of likeminded thinkers was highlighted by attempts to change the model of childrearing. The debate over whether the choice to keep the company of women or choose the company of likeminded thinkers is, I think, still being debated. That is, the question is how much of ones decision to be likeminded in ones thinking is determined by a condition of birth or, conditions of ones upbringing. Are you born likeminded? Or, do you choose--through the experiences of your childhood development--likemindedness?

We aren't surprised to find out that porn starlets or street workers experienced the unusual advances of adults at an early age. That is, what may be described as sexual perversion follows molestation of a type earlier in life.

So, to what degree would it follow that the choice to be likeminded would depend upon exposure to likemindedness at an early age? And, do we have a responsibility to limit or remove the likelyhood of exposure to likemindedness from children in the same way we work to limit or remove molestation of young girls?

I believe that the questions raised by Ms. Bryant's activism were those questions. It is in this regard that I have scarely any positive regard for the environment that one noted, likeminded thinker--that would be Rosie O'Donnell--is rearing "her child". But this is a specific complaint about a specific child. Do we make laws on the basis of one specific act or child?

Sorry for the long comment. But it seems to me that after the Florida Citrus Commission walked away from Ms. Bryant, criticism of likeminded childrearing couples has been taboo. It's almost like we can worry about some children, but not all children.

Or do I just not "get it"?

Overturning legislation is part of the legitimate function of the judiciary. Whether or not any particular case is legitimate depends.

Personally, I favor gay marriage under the "none of the government's damn business" clause of the constitution, and also under the establishment clause of the first amendment (because, let's face facts, opposition to gay marriage is motivated purely by religious feeling, every other reason I've ever heard is nonsensical and usually dishonest excuse making).

That said, I don't get too worked up about it. Recognition of gay marriage is inevitable and if you look at an age-based rather than geography-based graph, you'd see why. All we need to do is wait and most of those who oppose gay marriage will simply die.

eh...
What I don't like about the decision is that there is a "fundamental right to marry". Really? That's the stupidest thing I've heard lately... that and poor children can never be successful ( but that's another story ).

I don't really care one way or another whether any particular state ( mine or not ) issues "marriage licenses" to same-gender groups. Whatever. I don't care if they issue them for polygamists or siblings either. It's no skin off my nose. If that's what people want to do in the privacy of their own home, let 'em.

Just don't tell me it's some kind of "fundamental right". Cuz then I call shenanigans.

"Same sex" marriage abstracts the concept of gender from the definition of marriage. It's the latest of a long series of steps of removing key parts of the definition:

1. Birth control took care of child-rearing
2. Abortion-on-demand removed a man's "reproductive rights."
3. No-fault divorce removed the concept of permanence, that is, a lifelong commitment.
4. Other divorce laws damaged the contract, particularly for fathers, who take a huge risk in getting married.
5. The sexual revolution took care of the concept of sexual exclusivity -- 60 years ago, studies show that something like 80% of women either only slept with their husband-to-be before marriage or waited to lose their virginity to their husband after marriage.
6. And now, with the removal of gender, marriage itself is now a temporary contract based largely on the commitment of both parties to continue, with no necessary connection to child-rearing, in which one partner may or may not have reproductive rights.

Next up, abstracting number (polygamy and polyamory), relations and age from the definition of marriage. Monogamy and adultery, already weakened concepts, will also be further weakened.

The social impact? Well, it continues the "atomization" of our society, makes us less likely to form strong families, which leaves us more vulnerable, to paraphrase Elizabeth Fox Genovese, to domination by both government and corporatist interests.

I don't blame homosexuals for seeking what was, after all, the next logical step after the definition of marriage had already changed dramatically so it was unrecognizable. I was merely in favor of taking another look at the marriage changes we've already undergone and possibly revamp it in a more traditional way.

Once "same sex" marriage is law, however, it's unlikely to be rolled back. I agree that as traditional-marriage proponents die off and are replaced by those who support same-sex marriage, though, society will find it's thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

I'd that the consequence of weakened family ties will require government to grow to fill the gap: As a wise man once said, when you ignore the big laws, you get the small laws.

And the "enlightened" generation that pats itself on the back and follows us will wonder why their freedoms are even more tied down in a massive net of tiny freedom-killing rules. And they'll have no idea how it happened.

Many of the laws we have, from the massive welfare state to vastly increased crime to failing schools to increased regulations on businesses, have come about because sexual irresponsibility creates broken families which in turn creates chaos. And something powerful must step in. Hence, the domination by corporate and government interests.

One by one, we can be picked off. Together, in strong families and strong neighborhoods and strong communities, it's far more difficult.

Hey Darelf, we don't have the fundamental right to enter into contracts willingly? Wow, so I take it you will be socializing the bedroom then?