I was pleased with the decision today. I know there are many who aren't pleased with it. All I can say is that I doubt there is anything in this world that will please EVERYONE. But the people spoke when they voted and it should be upheld.

Sexual orientation is not a suspect class, race is.

There's a pretty big difference there. Also, Loving vs. Virginia.

Right, and it goes back to Kevin's original query -- can the constitution be unconstitutional. The statutes forbidding interracial marriage were just that -- statutes. Statutes must comply with both the federal Constitution and the relevant state constitution. The United States Supreme Court held that such statutes violate the federal Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. So, even if one were to assume that the majority of voters in a state wanted to amend their state constitution to prohibit interracial marriage, that amendment would be invalid under the federal Constitution.

But so far, the federal courts have not extended the federal Constitution's Equal Protection clause to include sexual orientation. In other words, there is nothing about Prop 8 that on its face violates the federal Constitution.

Yeah, and to go even further, there's a pretty sound argument that, because sexual orientation isn't covered by the US Constitution or Federal law, the 10th Amendment guarantees the rights of the states to handle the issue as the people see fit (obviously this has common-sense limits, but not really with marriage).

This is why we hear a lot of bluster about Congress addressing sexual orientation issues, but they never seem to actually get around to the topic in any substantive fashion.

Nothing substantive to add, but this is probably the clearest (and most concise) explanation of the issue and how it relates to the Constitution.

Cartoon commentary on Prop 8, it might cheer those who are sad about the decision

NOT WORK SAFE

http://www.logoonline.com/video/misc...erything.jhtml

And, I guess, what I was thinking was, the Constitution didn't always address race in that way but it does now. It could eventually address sexual orientation also.

I interpreted one of Kevin's comments as "if the majority of the people want it, that makes it Constitutional" although I don't think that's what he meant at all.

It could - and it would fundamentally affect state laws at that point. It doesn't now - the reasoning behind the Iowa decision, according to the Iowa Supreme Court, was that the state's Constitution had "protections" (in quotes because it does not refer to the legal term of art) in place for sexual orientation. Iowans could still amend to change that.

I think he meant the exact opposite, in fact - the "will of the majority" is not the basis of law, at least not in the basic sense, and something is Constitutional regardless of the feelings of any group of people (at least, in the ideal).

However, if the majority of people amend the Constitution (like in CA), that makes it legal.

High five, New Hampshire. Live free or die.