I admit, I am a conservative, but even so, I try to read your column regularly, as I do with many others. How can lawyers miss the obvious; that being, a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It's actually pretty clear cut and certainly not ambiguous.
Civil rights is about personal liberty, not about redefining things. For example, I might think the sky is red, when it is clearly blue in the eyes of everyone else. Just because I jump up and down about it, doesn't mean the sky is red. It's not a violation of my civil rights if I don't understand that the wavelength for blue is different than red.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not much more complicated than that. I find that the only people who find the definition ambiguous are the ones wanting to change it. No matter how much you jumps up and down, red and blue will always be two different colors.

So Ms Estrich wishes this issue was decided by a vote of the people--and then says if it is a "fair result". So I guess that means any vote she disagrees with is unfair---so therefore let's go find a judge to overrule the will of the people.

If the eventual vote of the people could have rendered a result that could in any way be unlawful or unconstitutional then why was this vote taken in the first place? Is California, with its countless thousands, even millions, of lawyers not capable as a state to predict obvious possibilities using simple logic?
Or is it that people of Estrich's ilk are willing to go through the motions of democracy, and then proceed to abide, like good citizens, with decisions they are comfortable with, but pull the proverbial "fast one" if things go the other way?
Methinks the they are fans of the latter.
Susan Estrich epitomizes, on a national level, the type of disengenuous person that stirs the cauldron of deep discontent in media/government, and why the people no longer trust either.

Some how being a lawyer has taught you to argue that civil rights is about giving people rights that go directly against the natural order. The natural order is that men and women together can procreate. They make children. It is the wholesome, clear and natural order of things. The act of marriage is to solidify that bond between a man and women to create a family. So why is it that Gay's want to horn in on marriage. Is it that they want to feel that that the society accepts their man and man or women and women relationship as natural. I sorry but its not the normal order of things. Its a anomaly at the fringe. Perhaps they should invent their own right of companionship instead of trying to steal the right of heterosexual men and women simply to make a point. Gays have been broad acceptance in the society and most people don't ridicule or taunt them anymore. But apparently you will not be satisfied until High School kids are taught that we have to have 50% gays in this country to make us more fair. Some of you will just have to be designated gay so you vote for their rights. Sorry it just isn't going to happen.

"Would I rather this issue were decided by the people? Sure, if they reached the fair result."

What the hell does that mean "fair result". My side wins? Your side wins? This is so blatently transparent.

This issue WAS decided by the people. Now, it appears sit will be decided by some other people. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that the courts in such matters are there to protect citizens from government, not to protect citizens from the vote.

I was going to point out what Robert did on Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:42 PM, however there's little I could add to his comment on that point. Most everybody screams “democracy” when they are in the majority, but only when they are in the minority do they give any indication of appreciation for The Constitutional Republic The US properly actually is. But as to the issue of Gay Marriage let me throw out a compromise for possible discussion. Let me first say, however, that whereas I was fortunate to have been born into the favored majority of heterosexuals I am unthreatened by Gay Marriage. In fact Marriage itself is not a big issue for me as since we are not religious and don't believe our personal relationship is any of the state's business my girlfriend and I have been living in a monogamous relationship for 33 years without a marriage contract. We really don't need a contract because we really do value each other more than either of us does anybody else. That having been said I do understand why religious people would want marriage to be recognized only between a man and a woman. I strongly suspect that marriage was originally a religious institution. In fact as far as Jews and Christians are concerned I see no mention in The Bible that the state should have anything to do with it. I'm not really sure about other religions. However, there are legal issues which accompany marriage so the state issues licenses for that purpose. Some states and some religious people condone “civil unions” for Gay couples, giving them the same legal rights as married couples except for the title of “Marriage”. Is there any good reason to refuse homosexuals the right to have a legal share of each other as do married heterosexuals? My compromise, which I personally think is actually even better than a compromise, would be for the state to offer only civil unions to homosexuals or heterosexuals. Then anybody who wants to get married would be free to find any church or other institution that would be willing to sanctify their union as “Marriage” to perform the ceremony for them. Or they could perform the ritual themselves if they liked. That way the government would sanction only the legal arrangement for any couples who desired one, and everybody would be free to recognize only the marriages they thought were worthy of the title. Before you disagree with this solution let me ask you if you really want to render unto Caesar that which is The Lord's. I don't think anybody in The Bible bought a marriage license from the state. Check it out and think about it.