>>>Marriage is not a right.
>>
>>It is certainly a state recognized contract. As such, the burden of proof should certainly be on the state as to grounds to discriminate against the participants.
>
>Can't speak to other states but I know California has addressed the issue with civil union laws.

And that is certainly a move in the right direction. Personally, if I were absolutely certain that this entailed *exactly* the same rights as "marriage" under California law I would suggest as a matter of strategy that supporters of gay marriage accept that, encourage their heterosexual supporters to do that *instead* of "marriage" and in another 10 or 20 years the two would become legally as well as functionally synonymous.

I share your suspicion of legislation by judicial fiat and I know it is a principaled and consistant argument on your part. I do consider the idea that in this kind of social change sometimes getting the cosmetics right (when the functional rights have been acheived) may be a tactical victory but a strategic loss. I have little doubt that in another generation this will be moot.


>
>>>
>>>>Yes, it is.
>>>>
>>>>The state constitution used to prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation. It still actually does say that, but it now says "except marriage".
>>>>
>>>>Wonder what right will come under fire next.
>>>>
>>>>Dan
>>>>
>>>>>Scary.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Not in California. "The will of the majority" trumps -- and even changes -- the constitution at will.