Here's the article I am referencing. "Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts" by Robert George in the Wall Street Journal Opinion section Monday Aug 3, 2009.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html

The argument in this article is logically inconsistent and ethically flawed. For example it tries to make a case that gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue. *That* is ludicrous! First let’s make sure everyone reading this has a brief history lesson on how prejudice becomes law here in CA.

Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion in last year’s decision that granted marriage rights to same-sex couples in California says the following, “Our government is based on the principle not just of majority rule, but equally so on the limit that majorities must always respect minority rights,” he said. “That balance between majority rule and minority rights is recognized as the genius, as the defining hallmark of our democratic system.”

The lawyer defending Prop 8 in court was Kenneth Starr – remember him??? “Starr argues that Prop 8 should remain part of the constitution because the democratic system provides for popular sovereignty, even if the decision of the people is unwise!” When George asked whether an amendment taking away domestic partnership rights or the right to free speech would be valid by this reasoning, Starr said such an amendment would be permissible “as long as it is in fact clear to the people what they’re voting on.” (Excerpts from ‘Justices grill attorneys on Prop 8’, By Chris Johnson, Washington Blade | Mar 5 2009, 6:03 PM)

Eloquence does not equate to sound logic! The principle Justice George uses in the case of marriage equality *IS* the SAME principle used by the US Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virgina! The article’s author suggests that Loving, a federal case that undid bigoted state laws against interracial marriage is somehow different from the ruling in place prior to Ca Prop 8. He says, "Everyone agreed that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them as part of the evil regime of white supremacy that the equal protection clause was designed to destroy." I guarantee more than Clan members were "unsettled" by Loving back in 1967! Yet Loving now is widely supported even it wasn’t back in the day. The rule of law can lead the people towards equality if applied in an equitable manner. If not, it acts to institutionalize prejudice!

1st "everyone" did not agree at the time of Loving and racism sadly still exists in many places today in 2009 despite the courts acting to protect civil rights for over 40 years! In 1958 the Virgina Circuit Court grand jury said the following, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." If it wasn’t for the “principle” of balancing majority rule with minority rights interracial marriages and segregation might still be upheld in some states. That is NOT okay nor is it consistent with the thread of the Constitution as we see it today. The constitution is after all an evolving document as intended by its authors who put in place the seperate branches of power!

2nd George makes that claim that what distinguished marriage historically is the ability to produce offspring but then goes on to point out that non consummation is the grounds for annulment not infertility. *If* marriage is about baby making then infertility *should* be the leading reason for annulment! George says, “But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation.” Believe me gay folk know a lot about “biological unions!” And that is really the problem isn’t it, people being uncomfortable with the idea of sodomy. If you aren’t into it- don’t do it! But let’s not make stupid laws and waste ALL this money over what other people do or don’t do in their private lives!

California Democrats have been excessively lazy in attending to California's finances and the state of our democracy. What they should have been doing all these years is building a campaign for basic reforms such as 50% vote being sufficient to raise taxes, splitting the Prop 13 tax rolls so that business pays its fair share, and perhaps most important creating a system for elections where opponents are more closely matched and the outcome of elections can no longer be so easily predicted, because when most of the outcomes are predictable, there is no real democracy and no real elections. Hopefully Prop 11 will take care of electoral reform, but without the people pushing for all they're worth, there will be no reform.