“There is no reason for love. It just is. And when it’s there, it endures, even when it shouldn’t.  Even when you try to make it go away. It’s hard to make it die. I’ve learned it’s also unnecessary- and unwise.  It only lessons you for it. So you accept it. You lock it away. You let it stay. You don’t deliberately kill love. You just don’t act on it…  But hate is different. If you are going to hate, you should at least have a reason.”

~ Rhapsody in Destiny by Elizabeth Haydon

Alright guys, settle in for a long(ish) one.

DISCLAIMER: As a guy who just so happens to be a homo, I absolutely believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. It absolutely blows my mind that the people of California voted to "Eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." Who votes to eliminate rights? But we'll come back to that.

THE ISSUE:
All of the crazy religious nutjobs conservatives of California got their panties tied into a knot when the California Supreme court ruled that gays did indeed have the right to get married under the current constitution. So what did they do? The set up Proposition 8: Eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to marry. (This is the actual full name of Prop8). They petitioned, they pleaded, they prayed, and they passed the damn thing in the November 4th general election.
What did this mean? The California constitution now bears an amendment to Article I entitled section 7.5. This amendment states simply that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Keep in mind that during the time same-sex marriage was legal, more than 18,000 same-sex couples were married.

The Rebuttal: All of the homos, liberals, and clear thinking people in California decided that they didn't like this amendment, and they wanted it overturned. The California Supreme Court accepted 3 cases dealing with the validity of Prop8 and its possible retro-active effects. I can't stress this next point enough, so it's going to be in all italics:
The Court was NOT ruling on the validity of same-sex marriage; they were ruling on if the amendment was properly voted in to the constitution.

The Legal Jargon:
Here's the core of the Supreme Court's issue: there are two ways to change the constitution in California.
1) Amendment: This requires only a majority vote by the people to be put into the constitution because it reflects a minor change, not a significant change in policy. This is was Prop8 passed as.

2) Revision: A revision represents a "change in the basic nature of the constitution," and has to pass a 2/3 vote in the state legislature before it can be put to vote by the people.

Those against Prop8 argued that it was a revision, not an amendment, and therefore was invalid. To me, this makes sense; I don't believe that the California Constitution allowed a vote by the majority to take away the rights of a minority before, so this would certainly be a significant change in the basic nature of the constitution and how the state is run - but I digress.

The Decision:
The California Supreme Court, in a 6-1 vote, ruled that Prop8 was indeed just an amendment and not a revision of the constitution.
On the issue of whether or not it was retro-active: they decided that the 18,000 couples were allowed to remain married, but could not remarry upon death or divorce of the current spouse. This decision was arrived at because the couples were married before the amendment was passed, and thus the marriages were perfectly legal.

In Defense of the Justices:
Judges are NOT policy makers. They simply serve to interpret the existing law, and make sure it is carried out. They are NOT allowed to legislate from the bench, and can only stick to the facts of the case and what the law itself says. Their personal feelings are not allowed to impinge upon their decisions in any way shape or form. Keep in mind that this is the SAME set of judges that said same sex couples absolutely had the right to marry about a year ago. What's changed in the law since then? Prop8. Prop8 now makes it illegal for two people of the same sex to get married, but it was passed into law according to the proper procedures.

The Dissenting Voice:
Justice Carlos Moreno was the only vote against Prop8, and here's what he has to say on the issue: To allow a majority of voters to deprive one minority group of its rights is to put "at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."
Sounds like a revision to me too, Your Honor.

Course of Action:
In order to overthrow this "amendment" to the California Constitution, the people of California have to pass ANOTHER amendment that essentially nullifies the one passed before. They just have to stand up and say that they believe that marriage is between ANY two loving, consensual, adults regardless of their gender. The Supreme Court Justices aren't going to hear this case again, they've made their decision and will more than likely stick to it.

MY Two Cents:
I'm not saying that people have no right to be mad; of course you should be mad! Human beings are being denied their rights simply because they don't have a large enough majority to protect them. This is wrong, and it's a very slippery slope I wish we hadn't even started down. Stand up for yourselves and your fellow humans, people of California! Overturn Prop8 yourselves with a NEW amendment guaranteeing the right of ALL people to marry. It'll take time, and work, and frustration, but the fight is certainly worth it.