Sorry, but there's no way that a majority of Californians are going to vote to take away equal protection from a particular class of citizens. It's just un-American. Save yourself a lot of time and money and just forget about trying to overturn the Court's decision. Move on to building bridges instead of walls.

Couldn't disagree with you more Cabana. Even those that pretend to be forward thinking in public will vote their core values in the privacy of a voting booth.

These same people will support Hillary or Obama in public because they want everyone to believe they are open minded enough to vote for a woman or a black as president, but they'll vote for McCain when they know no one is watching. For the record, this Reagan Republican is voting third party cause I can't stand any one of them and it has nothing to do with sex or race.

Sorry, didn't mean to infer that McCain will take California. He won't. I meant that there are way less hard-core gay rights advocates here than we are lead to believe by the media. We still have more than our fair share of hard-core democrats but democrat does not equal gay rights advocate. I would expect to see Obama take the state and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to also win in November.

Sharon,
I respect your right to disagree, and thank you for the civility of your posts. This Reagan republican will campaign against the constitutional amendment and it will fail...miserably. See you on the trail.

From the LA Times online Poll:
Did the California Supreme Court make the correct decision today?

81.7 %
Yes
18.3 %
No

14053 total responses

All this talk is nonsense because the DEFINITION of marriage is a between a man and a woman; with the notion first suggested in the Bible. It's not an issue of equality; it's an issue of technicality. Some words do indeed change over time- but certain definitions cannot and will not. This is one of them. You can't say excluding a group of people from a definition that doesn't include them in the first place is discrimination. It's almost as obnoxious as an average paid worker trying to claim they are a millionaire... the definition just doesn't apply to them.

A majority of Californians will ban gay marriage for this reason; not because they aren't for equality.... I would hope everyone is. Unions!

Not gonna happen.

Marriage pre-dates America, it's constitution, and it's laws. Moving forward to legalize gay marriage is very arrogant of Americans in the face of GOD , just as arrogant as thinking that we could stop the fighting in the Middle East that has been going on for 4000 years.

I think God has bigger fish to fry. I believe HE cares less about whom I love and more about that I love others.

Is The Proposed “Limit on Marriage” Constitutional Initiative Too Late?

The recent California Constitutional Right to Marry case, according to independent analysis, calls into question the currently proposed “Limit to Marry” Voter Initiative Constitutional Initiative. If Secretary of State Debra Bowen places it on the ballot, she would be wise to have the Legislative Analysts’s opinion consider the following cited cases and also discuss the issue with Attorney General Jerry Brown to inquire whether or not the proposed initiative can even be legally placed on the ballot.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly member Mark Leno, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, and Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors, and one of the main attorneys on the winning side of the marriage case, David Codell would be wise to immediately contact Bowen and Brown to raise the issue of the legality of the proposed initiative so that the voters of California are properly informed that there may be a potential problem in enacting the initiative if it passes this November (assuming it qualifies for the ballot).
As noted in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.”
The proposed initiative appears to now attempt to revise the California Constitution to remove the equal protection that gays and lesbians are now afforded under the California Constitution. With that in mind, the Secretary of State must be aware of the following case:
Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313:
Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. ( Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 ( Livermore ).)…
“ ‘[A]mendment’ implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.” ( Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 118-119, 36 P. 424.) The “revision/amendment analysis has a dual aspect, requiring us to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision.” ( Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077 ( Raven ).) “[A]n enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof. However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also.” ( Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 223, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 ( Amador ).)

According to the In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892: “Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution…. In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry - and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society - the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. ”
The proposed initiative originally sought to limit the Constitutional right to marry to opposite sex couples and, thus as originally drafted, it was intended to limit the right to marry to a man and a woman. But an amendment can no longer accomplish this. The Right to Marry exists and in light of the recent ruling, the initiative’s unintended consequence is an attempt to revise (as opposed to amend) the Constitution which, as explained in In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892, is a fundamental Constructional right to “all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.”
“Whether an initiative constitutes an amendment or revision to the Constitution does not necessarily depend on the number of constitutional provisions it affects, but on the nature of the changes it makes. (Grodin et al., The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide, supra, at pp. 303-304.) For a revision to be found, “it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution.” See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834 (quote set forth more fully below).
As Justice Moreno noted in a concurring opinion in Californians For An Open Primary v. McPherson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 735, 788:
Voters can propose amendments to the Constitution that will be placed on the ballot if the requisite number of signatures are obtained, but they may not propose constitutional revisions. (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 3; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 349, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077.)
See California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 833-834:
Although the electorate may amend the Constitution by initiative (art. XVIII, § 3), a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only by a constitutional convention and popular ratification (art. XVIII, § 2) or by legislative submission of the measure to the electorate (art. XVIII, § 1). ( Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 349, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281.) It has been suggested “the revision provision is based on the principle that ‘comprehensive changes’ to the Constitution require more formality, discussion and deliberation than is available through the initiative process. [Citation.]” ( Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 349-350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; cf. Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 506, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.) The revision/amendment analysis requires the court “to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme[, as] [s]ubstantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision. [Citations.]” ( Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077; Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 506, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.) Whether an initiative constitutes an amendment or revision to the Constitution does not necessarily depend on the number of constitutional provisions it affects, but on the nature of the changes it makes. (Grodin et al., The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide, supra, at pp. 303-304.) For a revision to be found, “it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution. [Citations.]” ( Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 510, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309, original italics.)

Therefore Schwarzenegger, Bowen, Leno, and Newsome should use their constitutional powers to obtain an opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the initiative is an amendment or a revision that would revise the equal protection clause as it relates to gays and lesbians.

It seems to me that people are more worried about gays getting married than they do about real issues like crime, social welfare programs, and our youth!
Does having homosexuals geting married invalidate marriage? It doesnt make my marriage less than...I think its selfish of people to keep these people from getting married.

Sincerly,

Mykel (A Christian with a heart)

if the court doesnt respect majority rules now, do you seriously think they will care later?? better watch out. this issue is deeper than the gay issue..dont continue to feed "big brother"

Give credit where it's due cabana. Don't plagiarize.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/inmyopinion052108.htm