Nice post Elie

People who oppose gay marriage are fucking morons. This is possibly the simplest issue out there. There's only one reason why people oppose it: hateful, ignorant, overt bigotry and homophobia.

I pity the fool who thinks that a stay legalizing gay marraige affects a churches Federal Tax Exempt status.

Mr. TTT

Knocked your first post of the day (blatant spelling errors.) Well done on this one Elie.

Why even bring this up for debate? Equal protection means equal F'N protection. Anyone who opposes it should be shot for treason.

Dude, could you please tell your dads to stop flirting with me?

The polling shows Prop 8 is going down.

Can someone please offer a rational, non-religion-based argument against gay marriage?

go skadden!

55-45 on Prop 8. Fail.

I don't the children being infected with the gay aids and stuff. Its contagious that gay aids.

Latest polling data on Proposition 8:

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_10493647

7:23 - Don't forget cooties. Highly contagious.

9: I agree with you but constitutionalists (Scalia, Thomas...) would say the 14th amendment when written did not intend gay marriage so we cannot become further evolved! Again, I AGREE WITH YOU

9 here. With respect to 15's point, I realize there is a legitimate debate about whether gay marriage should be brought about by the courts or by the legislatures.

What I want is a good argument against gay marriage as a matter of a policy. If I am in the shoes of a voter and not a judge, why should I vote against gay marriage?

Gay marriage is bad for children. Research shows that children do best when they have a parent of each gender in the household.

16: There isn't. Just like there wasn't with slavery, or anti-suffrage, or interracial marriage bans, or desegregation. In fact, it's hard to believe this is even an issue in our society.

Why would his partners care about him pissing off some law students? This guys brings in a fair amount of business, doesn't he? Well, that's that. Rainmakers can take any type of political position they want.

7:36 - I support gay marriage. But comparing a lack of gay marriage to slavery is a bit much.

Are we really comparing gay status in our society to slavery? Really?!

Pretty good post.

17, would it be better for children to have a mother and a father who both graduated from GULC, or to have two dads?

16 -- there is none. Any conversation with an anti-gay marriage person results in them making some stupid statement of their logic (?) along the lines of the following: man/woman has always been "marriage". Why should definition be changed to include man/man woman/woman - why then not have three people or man/animal. There has to be some limit to what marriage is and society decided what it is. A man and a woman. Period.

Therefore, not worth having such "policy" debate as such "logic" gets frustrating and is full of simple disgust of homosexuals.

LOL 23

17: In that case, divorce and legal separation should be illegal and baby daddies should be forced to live with their baby mommas. To take it even further, widowed spouses should promptly marry the next person of the opposite gender, for the kids.

I don't want to get aids.

Aids = TTT

Are we really comparing gay status in our society to slavery? Really?!

24 - What about the point about the raising of children in households with parents of both genders?

17 - Following that logic, should we make divorce between parents illegal? After all, that too leads to children growing up without one gender present in the household.

Are we really comparing gay status in our society to slavery? Really?!

26 - That's a straw man argument.

Divorce, separation, out-of-wedlock births, and deaths of spouses happen. This is the real world.

But our laws and social policies should not ENCOURAGE them. That is what gay marriage does.

Better analogy is slavery and abortion.

Why do you think Kennedy pissed off the Federalist Society? Clearly they had scheduled a debate on the issue, so one would think they planned to have someone defending gay marriage there. Having an open debate and the free exchange of ideas does not always equal pissing someone off.

Can't say I find many of the policy arguments against gay marriage convincing, personally. I think the most basic policy argument is just that people find it an immoral lifestyle--whether religiously motivated or otherwise. With that in mind, the thinking is that it should be the voters in a democracy who decide whether to allow it or not, rather than the courts.

Why can't gay people just settle for "civil union"? The benefits are basically the same. Why do they insist on "the M word"?

17: What "research." I believe the consensus among researchers is that you are wrong.

im all for gay rights, but every time i think of some guys sweaty rod going balls deep into my butt i get the willies.

So what if opposition to gay marriage is grounded in pure disgust for homosexuals? How is that not a valid ground for a democratic vote? Not a position that I'd support, but that's the price of having a directly democratic process for legislation.

And anyone who thinks that this kind of debate "pisses off the Federalist Society" has been in the Huffington Post circle jerk for too damn long.

29--nobody is stopping hetero couples from having kids. do you want to talk about "best". maybe outlaw out of wedlock motherhood as that is statically worse for kids. Kids are best indeed with traditional family -- bust any other home with some love and support and most important stability beats being sent from one foster home to next, back to a kids shelter, etc. (though I have most respect for these hgomes and foster parents)

35 - Why don't you just settle for a civil union then and never get "married"? Would you actually and honestly be okay with that? My guess is NO. And why should anyone have to "settle"

"The issue of gay marriage, he added, 'is to the 21st century what slavery was to the 19th century.'"

No. The issue of abortion (denial of personhood to living people) is to the 21st century what slavery was the the 19th century.

Denial of civil marriage to gays sucks but it isn't quite the same.

21, 28, 31 -- I don't think anyone is comparing "gay status" to "slavery."

But the rights of slaves and homosexuals to marry are quite comparable. In fact, they're identical in that slaves were prohibited from marrying other slaves and homosexuals are currently prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex (in every state and territory of the United States save California and Mass.).

37's comment is immature, but there is actually a profound point embedded within it. Such disgust or outrage is a legitimate basis for policy making.

Richard Posner writes:

"Mill famously argued in On Liberty that an individual has no valid interest in the activities of other people that don't affect him except psychologically...."

"But that is not a good economic argument because there is no difference from an economic standpoint between physical and emotional harm; either one lowers the utility of the harmed person."

"The issue is more complicated to the extent that some of the outrage is based on fear that making homosexual relationships respectable by permitting homosexual marriage will encourage homosexuality. Most people don't want their children to become homosexuals, and this aversion is a factor in the utility calculus."

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/07/the_law_and_eco.html

32: Homosexuality happens in the real world as well. Gay marriage does not encourage it.

42 are you f*cking kidding?!

yeah 43, thats what i was getting at.

-37

#42, horrible analogy. Slavery laws prevented just slaves from legal marriage, marriage laws keep all persons from marrying the same sex. Don't screw up our argument with your ignorance.

More from Judge Posner:

"[I]f the homosexual-rights lobby dropped marriage from its agenda and put all its effort into lobbying for civil unions, many states would soon recognize them, and eventually the federal government would follow suit and grant parties to such unions the legal status of spouses for purposes of social security and other federal laws; when that happened, there would be no practical difference between civil unions and marriage."

"Why so much passion is expended over the word 'marriage' baffles me. After all, even today, and even more so if civil unions were officially recognized, homosexual couples can call themselves 'married' if they want to."

The point raised by 48 is a good response to the argument offered by 40.

wow, 42, grasping at straws there.

Hey 37 - Don't knock it 'til you've tried it....

;-)

Accord, #38 para 2. Fed Soc panels are always balanced, and they'd feel cheated if someone didn't come advocate the "other side." Nobody pissed them off by disagreeing with them. (Calling them unfit for service on the federal bench, a la Sen. Schumer, on the other hand, pisses them off.)

Plus, on gay marriage, Fed Soc is on both sides. It has a few social conservatives and a load of libertarians.

What is more of a constitutional right --- Abortion or Gay Marriage?? [Strictly a constitutional question for the "Federalist" crowd out there]

35, if you're ok with giving all the benefits, why do you insist on withholding the "m" word?

For a while, it was fun to watch the train wreck that is Elie. But it's old, and this blog sucks! It's become Elie's personal soap box. Maybe I wouldn't mind if he weren't so stupid. I'm out.

I suspect the prop will fail and it may not be too close. I think that at least 1/3rd of all votes in the state come from the LA area and the SF Bay Area- both liberal HQ for the state. The inland part of the state may hate gay marriage...but there are not enough of them to turn the tide of state opinion. I'd also remind folks that the gov vetoed at least two bills allowing SSM. So, if the votes of the legislature are in any way reflective of the people that put them in office (we have term limits here so there is quite a bit of turnover in Sacramento) then it is obvious the will of the people has changed since the initial proposition limiting marriage to a man and a women. Why the anti SSM folks can't get this is puzzling. Moreover, in California same sex couples (SSC) have much of the state rights I enjoy as a married hetrosexual man. As California has granted more rights to SSC's the voters have observed no unraveling of the social fabric, no cataclysmic event, no swallowing of the state into the fires of hell. Everything pretty much stayed the same except some old ladies in Frisco finally got the right to take some state tax breaks and decide when their partner should be able to die in accordance with their wishes. Not really a big deal at all in the grand scheme.

So it is not surprising that prop 8 is going down to a defeat. Those opposing SSM have a high bar which Raoul articulated pretty well-who cares if two people who love each get married. How does it hurt me as a married heterosexual? They have been unable to articulate this coherently without sliding to fear mongering and patently offensive and un-PC anti-gay rhetoric so they will most likely loose.

On Volokh there was some really good stuff on SSM a while back in terms of the question of what will happen with churches that refuse to perform SSM's. I suspect that churches will be given a good deal of latitude though. Marriage is both, in the eyes of a church, a religious commitment, and a state action. When you get married you have to go and get a form (from the county) and after the ceremony you get the priest and witnesses to sign the document and then you are really married. So it isn't clear to me that if a church denies you access that it is an undue burden...just go to another church (Unitarian for example) or don't get married in a church. Does someone have a right to get married in a church or does some one have a right to marry? I think in Cali we will probably go for the latter but we will see.

Finally, there is a real questions of what happens when people from Cali move to other states that ban SSM's for the purpose of challenging SSM statutes that don't recognize their marriages. Also look for eventual challenges to DOMA (the oddly named defense of marriage act of 1996 (I think)) which bans federal benefits to SSC's. When we get enough states approving SSM's then we will get a serious challenge to this plainly discriminatory law. Either way we will end up in the SCOTUS within the next 10-15 years on this issue barring a serious legislative fix.

Actually, 55, Elie has been getting better and better.

Should people who have been divorced be allowed to weigh in on the sanctity of marriage debate? It seems that those (conservatives) who were given the right to marry, and then chose their spouse poorly, should now keep their mouth shut when it comes to this debate.

17, I'm sure research also shows that children "do best" when they come from high income families. Does that mean poor marriage should be banned too?

What does "do best" even mean?

35, i don't think that the rights are the same for civil unions and marriages. i am not positive, but i think that civil unions are based in state law, provide varying degrees of rights and protections depending on the state, and don't necessarily extend beyond the state lines. civil unions don't provide federal protections. e.g., civil union or not, a same-sex partner isn't considered a spouse entitled to health plan benefits or pension protections.

17 - Let's just assume that your statistic is true. Does it necessarily mean that the children are worse off because they have two parents of the same gender? No. Your statistic does not prove causation. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the negative impact on children comes from outside sources (i.e., people who judge them) or from having parents that constantly have to justify their civil union. I wonder if this statistic would remain true if society was a little more worried about treating all people with respect and dignity and a little less worried about who they choose to marry.

Additionally, it is possible such studies would find the same so-called negative impact on adopted children (because often children of same sex couples are adopted).

By the way, why do people pick on Elie? That crap is so high school. If you feel that you can write better posts, then get off your ass and do so. Otherwise, shut up and stop trying to make yourself feel better by talking smack about him.

- Not Elie (but a fan)

"Gay marriage is bad for children. Research shows that children do best when they have a parent of each gender in the household."

First, as pointed out above, I think the "research" shows that children in gay households show up just as well-adjusted (or ill-adjusted) as children in two-parent hetero households.

But, more to the point is this: the right of gay couples to marry will not encourage or discourage the raising of children in gay relationships. Gay couples who want kids but can't get married will still have them; gay couples who don't still won't have them.

At its core, the gay marriage debate is about giving equal legal status to gay relationships. Call it a civil marriage for everyone, or call it a civil union for everyone, I don't care. But separate but equal is inherently unequal. Yes, I think I read that somewhere once.

Why the bash on 42? Slaves couldn't marry slaves. Homosexuals can't marry homosexuals (at least those of the same sex anyway). Where exactly is the logical inconsistency in stating the rights of those two groups vis-a-vis marriage is comparable, if not identical?

9: Best analogy is to interracial marriage.

My story: I'm super-religious and have felt it in my gut and have even tried to come up with legal arguments in law school, working with visiting scholars fighting gay marriage, state by state, but you know what? It's impossible to come up with justifications that don't parallel the religious, moral, or bigoted arguments by the segregationists of the 1960s who opposed interracial marriage. Now I'm a lot older and wiser, and I am in an interracial marriage. If this is how gay partners must feel about permanent commitments to each other, and I'm sure it is, then I can't begin to argue with them. I would be a hypocrite indeed.

So, step 1: State by state laws permitting gay marriage. Family law doesn't belong as a constitutional amendment (either for or against).

Step 2: A SCOTUS case like Loving vs. Virginia making it so nationwide.

#64=applicant praying he can get into GULC

What has me ROFL is that if gay marriage is defeated in California, it will probably be OBAMA'S FAULT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21gay.html

OH THE IRONY.....

The tax-exempt argument is a red herring - one example jumps immediately to mind: an orthodox synagogue that refuses to permit intermarriages. In fact, I'd say that' the rule not only at orthodox, but also at virtually all conservative synagogues and probably a few reform temples as well. I'm not aware that anyone is seeking to revoke the tax-exempt status of any of those houses of worship, even though they refuse to officiate at a wedding that is entirey valid under secular law.

Was Elie's line about what Skadden partners would think about Raoul pissing off the Federalist Society meant to imply that Skadden's partners are conservative? If that's the assumption, I think it's misguided...

The only remotely convincing argument I've heard (from a policy perspective) against gay marriage is against the use of the M-word. The only time this makes sense, however, is when the argument is based on the premise that government has no business granting marriage of any kind--gay, straight, polygamous or otherwise.

If we get government out of the marriage game, it'll be that much easier to open up civil unions to all comers. Once the government can't grant a marriage certificate to anyone, everyone will be equal.

65 here.

P.S. This would be for state civil marriages. In contrast, each religion can and should do as it will in terms of requirements for performing marriage ceremonies. Religous ceremonies can be granted or denied couples on a cleric-by-cleric basis or religion-by-religion basis.

[departing soapbox]

42, you're an idiot. Being a slave was much worse than being gay.

since when does federalist society = homophobia? Isn't our dear leader David Lat gay and a member of the federalist society??

#72-I don't think 42 said anything about what it was like to be gay relative to how bad it must have been to be a slave. Only that the rights of gays and slaves regarding marriage were the same=no rights.

17 - Even is that IS true, preventing gay marriage isn't going to increase the number of children in one mother/one father households significantly, if at all.

73 - Many Federalist Society types are true Federalists, but a significant number (at least at the law school I went to) are just garden-variety conservatives.

Mystal is having my kid.

Balls Deep

Guys in my high school used to take on the Federalist Society all the time, it was no big deal.

- FRAT STUD

I'm gay and I would settle for civil unions.

There I said it.

The non-religious argument against gay marriage is that moral issues should be decided in a democratic way. As a society, we make judgments on who can marry with issues such as polygamy, incest, and 16 year olds dating 70 year old men. Somehow this is ok, but only "bigots" and "extremists" believe marriage should believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. Personally, I am yet to hear from a gay marriage proponent what distinguishes gay marriage from these other scenarios. I also resent the constant insistence that all opposition to gay marriage is rooted in hate. I agree that unfortunately that is sometimes the case (too often in my opinion), but there are many people who respect individuals decision to be gay but are against gay marriage because they believe the practice trivializes the institution of marriage.

Ugh. Can anyone quantify how many hours have been spent by rational, intelligent folks debating gay marriage with people in the Federalist Society and conservatives in general over the past ten years? How much time has been spent researching and writing briefs and organizing campaigns? How much research has been done simply to refute the antiquated notions that children will only grow up normally if raised in a traditional marriage household?

We should demand all of this time back, just like we should demand all of the time spent on civil rights, reproductive rights, gay rights in general, etc. etc. in the past sixty years.

Conservatives, we're waiting for our time back. Please process and return immediately. Thanks.

Ask the people who want "civil unions" to describe the harm in calling it "marriage." In the end, all they have is that the idea offends them.

I find it hilarious that Posner, the king of quantification, wants to talk instead about incommensurable psychological harms when the topic is one he personally opposes.

Whether prop 8 fails as polled will depend on voter turnout. A lot of young progressives in California don't think the state needs their help to put all the electoral college votes in Obama's camp. Hopefully the same sex marriage issue will draw them out to register and vote.

80-if democracy was the path to individual liberties, we wouldn't need the equal protection clause, prohibition of slavery, desegregation, etc.

Balls

Balls Deep.

Done.

80, what distinguises those senarios from straight marriage? Think for a second, because its all resolvable within your own preconceptions.

Of course you resent being called hateful, doesn't mean you aren't.

And same sex marriage is actually going to be resolved democratically, so far the california legislature said yes, the courts said yes, the governor said ask the people, and the "people" appear ready to approve it too. Will you accept it then?

There's no reason to distinguish between gay marriage, straight marriage, and polygamy.

If GULCers ran the country, the stars and stripes would be rainbow colored already.

The only and sufficient analogy from a policy perspective is miscegenation. Posner's argument and all of its spawn here founder in trying to rationalize it. Should black+white have focused all their effort on the recognition of "civil unions" and hope for later recognition from white folk?

Game, set, match suckers.

Uh, GULC = Georgetown = Catholic school.

No on Prop h8!

It cracks me up that Elie refers to a group which is half libertarian as the Lion's Den. He really needs to relax.

Elie notes the presence of the libertarians in the Fed Soc:

"Kennedy presumably had the support of some of the Society's more libertarian members. His debate opponent, Glen Lavy of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, was the flag bearer for the social conservatives...."

GULC = GAY & Catholic = They hate themselves.

Jewce Jewton

We provide a system of incentives (financial and social) to encourage men and women to marry, stay together and raise kids, because it has obvious benefits for society. I don't see how society has the same interest in gays getting together. They can have whatever relationship with each other they want and define the contours themselves. I haven't heard an argument for why everyone else is supposed to care and subsidize them (whether financially or just by symbolically applauding their actions). If you are going to change an insitution as old as marriage, you should at least pretend to have an argument (preferably one that rises above "Love Good" and "Me Want Benefits".

Close (55-45) but will fail to pass.

#79 - you won't feel that way when you finally find someone you love.

[three snaps in a Z formation with a head twist] hAAAAy!

Gay marriage opponents--Read "Covering" by Kenji Yoshino, a Yale Law prof. Challenge yourself to read a personal story about being gay in America and the legal implications of various gay-related laws to someone's humanity and dignity.

17 writes:
Gay marriage is bad for children. Research shows that children do best when they have a parent of each gender in the household.

----

Since no one has pointed out the logical fallacy, I will.

17, even if gay marriage were banned, gay people could still have kids. Surrogates need no govenrment permission, just a donor.

To the extent your argument is about the welfare of kids, two points:

1) realize that the legality of gay marriage will not affect the percentage of gays and lesbians who have them.

2) Now, for the analytical trump. GIVEN that gays and lesbians have kids and banning/legalizing gay marriage won't change this (not the question of whether they should), should these children be protected by having their two parents married? If you care about children growing up in a stable household, logic dictates you must support gay marriage. Marriage increases committment and stability, which is good for children.

and that, snap snap, is what we call schooling you.

"The issue of gay marriage, he added, "is to the 21st century what slavery was to the 19th century." Years from now, Kennedy insisted, the average person will look back and say, "How could people be so backward-oriented?" "
I am going to assume he was attempting humour when he made that comparision. I checked and I don't see any widespread evidence of gay people being owned, sold, bartered or being considered anyone's property. Oh yeah, the routine floggings are also missing. Gay folks GET OVER IT. Whatever tribulations you suffer will never rise the level of slavery, the effects of which are still being felt today.

96 and 98 = why gay marriage will never be accepted

100 comments and still no coherent argument in favor of gay marriage. At least the religious bother to make up some premises to create an argument (no matter how dubious)

94 - Why wouldn't society have the same interests with regard to gay couples as heterosexual couples? If finding a stable partner, pooling financial assets and raising children together should be encouraged for a man and a woman, why not for two men or two women? Is it because you really like gender roles and think the woman should stay home and raise the kids and the state should encourage her to do so?

By the way, being married doesn't get you much benefit from society, at least financially speaking, if you have two professionals with large incomes. Ever hear of the marriage penalty? If straight couples want to pay it, why would we stop gay professionals from doing so?

In sum, letting gay people marry means greater social justice AND more tax income for society. How often do those two interests align?! Seems like a no-brainer to me.

hey 100,98 here -- it already has, according to california polls. oh also, and the president is going to be Black, too, so be prepared for a whole tsunami of joint Black and gay finger snapping. i'm glad you feel threatened by finger snapping. scarier part? i could probably bench press you too. s - n - a - p.

103 - enjoy seething in your bubble

103--

Why did you capitalize "black" but not "gay"? Do you secretly hate gays?

LOL. oh 100, i'm not seething, i'm euphoric. how could i not be. look...

:-D

Guys in my high school used to take sweaty rods balls-deep in the ass all the time. It was no big deal.

Gay Frat Stud

106 - so you're not the gay guy at the gym crying as he channels his feelings of resentment, exclusion and inadequacy into a power lift session?

Oh 105, no. I capitalize Black because they have a discrete set of experiences that qualifies for capitalization. Try some critical race theory See, e.g., Kimberel Crenshaw, Mapping the margins in the Stanford law review for starters.

And I don't secretly hate gays, because I am one. wait, are you ann althouse -- i know you called Elie anti-Black and the other female blogger sexist. That would make you three for three!

Nope. I feel included...by my big law firm, society, my family. it's a good life. and i feel blessed.. and if people can't accept us because they're unusally fixated on personal lives, that seems to be more their issue than mine. So, I say, God bless America. and good night. Keep posting 100 and trying to seem like disparate people!

56--Nobody read your treatise. Its too freaking long. BreviTTTy.

Elie,

Get a clue. The vast majority of Federalist Society folks I know out here in California support gay marriage, myself included. Way to repeat LegalPad's "lion's den" characterization. Copying is easier than original thought, eh?

Kennedy wasn't "defending" gay marriage to the society. That makes it sound like he, or gay marriage, are or were under attack by the Federalist Society. Rather, he was participating in a debate with another, singular human being, at the invitation of the society. In case you hadn't noticed, that's what the Federalist Society does -- they foster debate and discussion. The Federalist Society can't even take a position on Prop 8.

< :-() - - - o===B

Balls Deep

It's pretty clear why Elie isn't a practicing attorney:

"Pissing off the Federalist Society"?

What, did he just bust in the door at the luncheon and start ranting about gay marriage?

Oh wait, no, he was invited to speak and graciously accepted that invitation. Even so, that sure must have pissed them off! How dare somebody accept an invitation to come speak at one of our events! Grrrr!

Retard.

And the winner is ... 113. That is f'ing funny.

Elie, you are so stupid and gay. You are the walking embodiment of everything that is stupid and gay.

Suck it Mystal.

UVA2L

Is it possible to both (a) be aware of Elie's existence and (b) believe in a god? If so, how?

As a deeply religious orthodox jew who believes homosexuality is a moral wrong . . . there is absolutely no legitimate argument against legalizing gay marriage in this country.

None.

Not from a policy standpoint, not from a morality standpoint, and not from a religious standpoint - because as a religious person, the absolute last thing I want to see is legislation based on religious sentiment.

As someone above pointed out, the "what about the kids" argument is a canard, especially given that having kids and getting married have now been wholly . . . divorced.

Same for the "divorce happens" line - well, no kidding it happens, because its legal. If divorce were illegal (as gay marriage is in most states), it wouldn't happen. Circular reasoning at best.

And on the "anti-democratic" line - so was Loving v. Virginia equally "anti-democratic"? How about Brown v. Board? One of the best aspects of the American polity is that we have recognized from the very beginning that certain things have no business being left up to a popular vote.

This blog has sucked since it became an echo chamber for the fringe left. Please go away, Elie.

This blog has sucked since it became an echo chamber for the fringe left. Please go away, Elie.

Hot damn. You went full homo didn't you? Man, you never go full homo. Everybody knows that.

Bye bye ATL

118, you are my hero and a true chaver. - a gay goy.

Tell it, 112.

85, of course straight marriage applies to my example. That is my point. The lines have to be drawn somehow, and I think the voice of the people is the best way. You are wrong that it was done democratically. In fact, the opposite was done. People voted for an initiative to preserve marriage between a man and a woman and the court threw it out with reasoning that was dubious at best. Of course I will support gay marriage if it is passed, but the burden should have been on the other side to overturn the initiative. I don't believe there was anything in the California Constitution that warranted a reversal (but I also do not think there is anything in the Constitution that prohibits allowing gay marriage).

As for being hateful, I have generally found those that accuse others of being hateful are often the guiltiest of hate themselves.