re: #242 SanFranciscoZionist

This is more passive-aggressive nonsense.

For the moment, a bare majority of California voters favor a ban on same-sex marriage.

A Federal judge has determined that this cannot stand under the law.

I can tell you’re feeling disenfranchised, but you’re not, any more than I would be if I had voted to ban interracial marriage and had that struck down.

Here’s my question for you: if we wait five years, the numbers will have changed. California gains a percentage point favoring same-sex marriage annually. The tides of social change are shifting.

Suppose this had been allowed to stand and we had taken it back to the voters in 2012 or 2014? And a majority of California voters had overturned 8, as would have invariably happened?

Am I really to believe that those who are so hurt by the disregard of the voters would have accepted the will of the people then? Or would they have screamed louder for a Constitutional amendment?

Are we talking about the rule of law, or about what we want the outcome to be?

Unfortunately your rosy predictions concerning the inevitability of positive social change are in doubt these days…or haven’t you noticed the neanderthal groundswell? The constitution and the judicial branch’s willingness to enforce it (or not) are going to remain crucial.