More to the point - heterosexuals are afforded specific legal rights and financial opportunities from the state of California that are not currently being extended to gays. Specifically concerning (among other things) community property laws, income tax incentives, estate receipts, medical treatment authority, etc.

It is as illegal to deny these things to someone based on sexual orientation as it is to deny it based on any other ground - ethnicity, religion, hair color, etc.

My question is this:

assuming that you are opposed to legal gay marriages, how would you propose to ammend this conflict with the CA constitution - or do you agree that such a conflict exists?

What law are you referring to?

Do you not agree that the judicial system was instituted to interpret the legality and definitions of our laws?

The fact that nobody interpreted it could mean "gays have a right to marry" until recently rather makes my point. The provision is part of the original 1849 Constitution of California. The law limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex has been around since time immemorial. Clearly, therefore, it doesn't violate the 1849 Constitution.

That doesn't preclude it being wrong, of course. But the people can always change it if it's a matter for legislation. The people have no voice if it's a matter for judicial fiat.

Remember it's interpretation regarding same sex marriages was never CONSIDERED until recently so the fact that nobody asked the question for 150 years does not in any way make it less applicable.

To put it another way - for 150 years no one iterpreted it as NOT applying to same sex marriages. So the argumanet goes both ways.

Article I, Section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides that "[a] person may not be . . . denied equal protection of the laws."

A couple points:

1) Gay marraige rights have nothing to do with religion. Marriage (while admittedly a religious event to many) is also a legal entity - the government made it so the second that laws were passed granting rights specifically to individuals that were 'legally' married (income tax laws, estate laws, medical consent, etc. are a few that spring to mind). To deny these legal rights to individuals based on their sexual orientation is paramount to denying individuals to form corporations based on their race. Would we be having this debate if say, blacks were barred from forming corporations? I certainly hope not.

2) It is the responsibility of the judicial system to decide on the constitutionality of any law. Period. That is the function of the judiciary branch of the California government. On many occasions in the past, ballot measures that were approved by the voters in November have been struck down by the courts - and rightly so. Let's not forgot that a good number of what are currently referred to as 'red states' voted to uphold slavery in the past so we can concede (I hope) that simply because more than half of a given populace votes in favor of something does not automatiucally make it right or even legal.

Anyway, here's the story from the SF Chronicle.

Gay and lesbian couples in California have a constitutional right to marry, a Sa...