I find it entertaining that they are soooo threatened by people who choose to live lives outside of their control and dominance.
they make me think of a line in a ann coulter spoof. "why are they so mean to me just because I said it was good their husbands died in a terrorist attack? it is just like, 'SHUT UP, AND LET ME ATTACK YOU!' "
I'm still not sure how I want that to pan out. On one hand, if they aren't allowed to defend the case, it ends there and prop 8 gets over turned but the effects are limited to CA. On the other, if they can then it can get over turned in a higher court and possibly applied nationwide and based on questions raised by the judges it, I doubt they'd win the appeal.
well, when a legal arguement is one based on the content of the federal constitution *which is the law of the land that trumps all other laws and state constitutions*, then it sets precedence for that to be argued elsewhere. A precedence that has been set has a heavier weight than a lack of precedence. It is one of the core reasons we have a judicial system. if we win the right to marry in california, we set precedence that can be used. the federal constitution again trumps state laws. we win, and it will be harder to argue that the federal constitution does not apply to questions of gay marriage. the fed. constitution is a core element of the prop 8 repeal case.
I think a precedence based in the federal constitution will be a blessing. voter passions cannot conquar constitutional precedence or law.