How many times have we seen this happen? over and over again activist judges overturn what millions of voters wanted.

ya, it's called judicial tryanny.  The solution?

Get rid of those judges! 

They are afraid to let it come to a vote because just about everytime it does, these issues don't go the way they want. 

yep, as in, nailing it to the tree. 

And a happy yogurt to you too baybee!!!

These are San fran freako Judges elected by the voters of San fran freako who have a track record of extreme LIBERAL bent, anyway the folk of san fran freako can shove their wagging cocks and pussies into the face of the entire nation they will do it with no regard.

As opposed to minority/majority tyrrany? Doesn't make either right. It's all the same; same wolf, different sheep costume. Until people as a whole can learn to truly live and let live, and not SHOVE their opinions, then nothing will change. It'll be a game of tug of war.

For that matter, just because the majority says something is wrong (or right) doesn't make it so.; just take a gander at Nazi Germany, or WW2 America for examples of what many people felt was "right."

I'm personally completely for GLBT rights/marriage. Sorry, just no way on earth, heaven or hell that my mind will change on it. Call me whatever you wish.

This is what makes America so great you are allowed to think and vote the way you want to, so am I. I am sure you would not like to see something you and your like thinking voters passed into law, wiped out by ONE JUDGE who thinks he knows better than million of foll that voted just like you, would you?

Something I'd like to add to this is something i've mulled over.

Seemingly, those elements who wish for gays/lesbians to gain the same rights do not acknowledge the idea of gradual emancipation, whether through education or just letting time and nature do its thing. They seem to want it now, which, as history shows - is unlikely and absurd. Example being, Black and women's rights. It took years for these issues to be (somewhat) settled.

I seriously think it's the best plan, educate people, and gradually things will change. I'm confident of that.

Do a million people know any better? Do half a billion people know any better? Again, take a gander at America during WW2 or Nazi Germany. It's like the saying, "If Jimmy told you to jump off of the bridge..." Well, if a million people told you to jump off a bridge, does that make it right?

And yes, you are, but does that give you right to impose your standards, or your morals on them; to negate their will/choice in the matter of marriage. I'm sorry, but no. Just as you cannot legislate an official religion, you cannot legislate marriage rights.

Just as you have rights, so should gays have them. I don't buy the cock-a-bull comment, "Sure they have the same rights...to marry someone of the opposite sex." It's completely ludicrous.

I think the biggest problem is that it is a MORAL issue. That's when the line hit's the weeds, otherwise this issue would more than likely have been settled.

As so far as my interpretation of the law, and the constitution, the case against gay marriage/rights falls flat. All men and women are supposed to be treated fairly under the law, and that just won't be so if P8 passes.

Why not? After all marriage has a legal value. Why shouldn't government legislate a title that comes with privileges before the law?

What you mean is perhaps that government have no righ to legislate whether or not two (or any number of) consenting adults cannot live together and do whatever they want. But whether government will grant such a combination special tax status or not is certainly a matter of legislation.

So what is the difference?

And what business do teachers have teaching children about the morality of certain lifestyles? And which morality should they choose? And how do we reconcile the fact that we choose a certain system of morality to be taught with the constitutional requirement of keeping state and religion separate?

I find the pagan Greek system of morality fascinating (and wrong, but my opinion is besides the point) and I would like to know why an American teacher should not teach the Zeus religion's stance on homosexuality rather than the Abrahamic religions' stance?

Minority Tyranny?  A stretch to say the least.  But let's put that idiocy aside for the moment.

majority Tyranny?  Like when the majority ELECTS Bush?  That is tyranny?  WHat is your perverted definition of tyranny?  Any action that any single person disagrees with?  Wow!  Let's all be hermits!

The simple fact is I guess a simpleton can see tyranny in any action.  Yet the sad fact that does escape you is that you do get to vote for or against Bush.  How many judges were elected to legislate?  I will give you a hint.  ZERO.  SO when they MAKE law, they are not only violating their oath of office (to interpret), but also are then ruling by dictatorial powers.  Tyranny in other words.

For the hard of reading.

Except even the bisexual Greek society marraige was for the opposite sex.  Homosexuality is just for fun and Zeus' trysts with men prove that point cause hestill went home to his wife.

Once again you assume you know what is best and make some kind of moral decision that in your tiny little mind carries much more weight than mine does, well here in my blog it does not you fucking idiot. welcome once again to my list of the silent.

The difference TO ME is obvious. two men or two women together make no sense except to the two men or two women involved. I am not shoving my lifestyle in their face I ask them to not force their life style on me.

Yes to all lefties it is tyranny! because they did not get their way therefore it is wrong!