Yes, I plan to vote for John McCain and yes, I am a Republican, yes, I am gay, and yes, I am proud of all of this. It is a stupid and serious mistake for judges to make laws (also known as dictatorship) rather than elected legislatures and the people themselves by referendum. Unelected judges decided to legalize abortion before many citizens were prepared to accept it, and this has caused no end of problems. Let the laws be decided by the democratic process and people will accept the results.

john smith if we just allow the majority to rule the minority women would still not be able to vote, and we would probably still have legalized slavery. the courts must protect minorities.

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

Queerunity, you are wrong on all counts. Women were given the right to vote in 1920 when all-male legislatures adopted a constitutional amendment. Slavery was likewise abolished by a constitutional amendment following the Civil War. Democracy takes time but the results are more final. I would rather have laws passed democratically than any other way.

So…let me get this right, John Smith. We are all supposed to sit around and wait for everyone to be acceptant before laws are passed and rights are given? If that were the case, there would be no civil rights given to anyone other than white, upper class males. People all across the nation still dont "accept" minorities, still don't "accept" GLBT, still don't "accept" immigrant workers, still don't "accept" a womans right to choose.

If we sit around waiting for acceptance nothing would ever get done.

I have no desire to marry personally, but think it is a shame that as a gay individual someone would marginalize any movement towards equality regardless as to whether it was established by an "unelected" court (even though they are put there by people WE elected and most of the CA supreme court were put there by Republicans)

There is an analogy that may help understand why judges are necessary to interpret and create law: Judges and lawyers are engaged in the science of the meaning of words. Just as doctors/scientists analyze chemical compounds to find a cure for AIDS, judges analyze words to determine their meaning and apply that meaning to our everyday lives. So rather than calling them "activist judges" you can think of them as "scientists" in the meaning of words.

The Cailfornia (and US) constitution contain a phrase: "equal protection under the law." In analyzing this phrase, Judges are to dispense with passion, politics and subjectivity and analyze it based on our social history, how the phrase was used to show context, and our evolving standards of acceptance and decency.

While slavery was in fact abolished by legislative action, it was not until court interpretations of the equal protection clause that blacks began to receive civil rights in the form of access to education, housing, and jobs.

Politicans/legislative bodies are more often than not beholden to special interests, whether it is moral crusaders in the Republican party or anti-war protestors in the Democratic party. Rarely can a politican advance a controversial civil rights issue because he/she risks losing re-election. Referendum action is completely unreliable in the realm of civil rights because it is usually impossible for the minority group to persuade the self-interested majority group to allow access to this particular right (e.g., gay marriage).

Because we have independent judges/scientists to analyze the "equal protection" phrase, members of the minority group usually have a better chance of having their rights recognized and protected.

Well said Tom; there are other factors too though. I'm sure the male legislatures that gave the women the vote had to go home and listen to their wives and discuss and debate the protests of the Women's Suffrage movement etc. Which leads to my point that we are also products of our time. Thoughts and ideas change over time. While slavery certainly could be legal again if certain amendments were removed from our constitution, we are now passed that – hopefully! Due to more enlightened (or for those who disagree) different thinking on the subject.

I agree Jaroslaw, we are a product of our time, and I think if we can get a Dem in the white house, we might just be at a time when monumental advances can be made for gay civil rights.

Tom, you probably lost John Smith in your first sentence – you used the word "science". Republicans and science don't get along.

The whine-fest continues at http://www.gaypatriot.org. I think there are about 50 gay Republicans there keeping the homocons' site alive.