Yeah, and you forgot selling your daughter into slavery. ;-)

But this IS a state that had 50+ candidates for governor in the last round, including an actor and a porn star (combine those two and you almost get an actual politician!). Expect the unexpected in CA politics.

Dan

>I really am offended by intellectually dishonest arguments. To say this is "for the children" or in "defense of marriage" offends me. If a genuine believer in Leviticus wants to say they oppose this on the grounds it is an abomination in the eyes of God, I respect that. (but would respect it more if they also were active in campaigns to stone witches and prohibit state licensing of any food establishment that served shellfish or violated the split hoof thing)
>
>If somebody just says it triggers their "ick" factor - okay, I feel that way about a lot of couples I see on the street <g> I personally don't feel anyone's sexuality is my business unless it directly involves me. Personal preferences and religious taboos are not a legitimate argument for secular public policy.
>
>
>>>I think the constitutional argument should be that this is unlawful interference in a contract freely entered in to. There is just no rational basis for forbidding commitment between consenting parties. Being married by a church is not considered marriage by the state unless the proper license is obtained. That license is the issue. I just can't see any legal basis to deny it to any two (or more) people who accept its terms.
>>
>>Agree.
>>
>>This go-round was interesting to watch. The "yes on 8" people managed to turn the entire campaign into a "FOR THE CHILDREN" issue. Do it 'FOR THE CHILDREN'.
>>
>>People lining the streets and waiving signs had their children right there next to them, smiling and waiving.
>>
>>The only thing about the whole deal that's 'FOR THE CHILDREN' is legally mandated discrimination.