Well, at least they ain't homewreckers....

There's a little absurdity present, or maybe a lot, depending upon how you look at it, in the way this played out. The court upheld the ban on same-sex marriages, while allowing the 18,000 marriages that already occured to still exist, which at least indicates that they were just looking at whether ballot referendums could legitimately change the state constitution instead of any of the bs pro-Prop-8-aganda that tried to make, um, some families and human bonding illegal. (Although one judge at least did point to the equal treatment clause in his dissent--good for him, seriously.)

And from what I've been reading around by bloggers who are smarter than I am (I concede, there are many), that the word "marriage" is disallowed to these couples, doesn't necessarily mean that the rights married couples receive can be denied to same-sex partners based on earlier legislation--I guess they could wind up with a situation kind of like civil unions in New Jersey in the meanwhile. And of course, California being California, they could just put the referendum up on the ballot again. (And again?)

Until sanity prevails and all people get to be treated the same under the law. I just think it has to be inevitable that that day will come, and I also think a lot can be learned from how the religious right mobilized to pass Prop 8--and how educating and activism might stop it from happening again.

The way this case played out was disappointing, though.