Here's what I think we should do now in California

The haters continue to say "give the gays civil unions." So let's test the waters and see if they are good for their word or will fight those too.

Should civil unions be put in place, we start a petition drive to have marriage stricken from the Constitution and the state will ONLY convey the legal rights previously associated with "marriage" to civil unions. All "marriages" recognized prior to passage of the amendment revert to civil unions

Because they're assholes like that.

but they need to be called out once again on their hypocrisy

Some countries only recognize civil unions, relegating the religious ceremony to the status of a "blessing" on the union. Couples will typically have a "civil wedding" at a registry office, attended by a couple of close friends or relatives, followed by a big "church do" (that has no legal status). Your idea, therefore, has some pretty strong precedents.

Anything a non-CA person can do to help?

Marriage aside, however, the National Black Justice Coalition report and other surveys have found that civil unions also are unpopular among blacks.

In 2004, 36 percent of the HRC survey’s respondents said they strongly opposed civil unions, while another 11 percent were generally opposed. The total opposed jumped this year to 53 percent, according to the Pew Center’s survey in May.

Robinson said opposition to civil unions runs high in part because the purely legal institution is seen as too close to its religious counterpart.

“Civil unions are seen as marriage light,” he said. “It’s not seen as substantially different.”

Also problematic, Robinson said, is that many fear that civil unions could put gay couples further along the path toward securing marriage rights.

He said many blacks thus advocate against civil unions because they believe “we have to hold this ground, because if we lose here, then everything else falls.”

Brumfield agreed. He said many blacks “think that gay, lesbian, transgender people have an agenda of some kind, an agenda that’s dangerous for our society,” and that agenda must be stopped.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/7-11/news/national/12917.cfm?page=2

is just to be given equal rights and protections under the law. But no doubt the African-American community can't even BEGIN to relate to that concept. <sarc off>

This hate fest is an example. Bit OT, but still, background info.

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Daughter+of+Martin+Luther+King+Marches+in+anti+gay+marriage+rally&fr=slv8-tyc7&u=www.nd.edu/%7Edcampbe4/SAMESEX.pdf&w=daughter+daughters+martin+luther+king+marches+anti+gay+marriage+marriages+rally&d=DfdWf0LURvL6&icp=1&.intl=us

Religious Coalitions For and Against Gay Marriage: The Culture War Rages On

David E. Campbell University of Notre Dame
Carin Larson Georgetown UniversityNote:

To be published in The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage, eds. Craig Rimmerman and Clyde Wilcox, University of Chicago Press.

“We come here today for the audience of One,” proclaimed the president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins. He stood before a cheering crowd gathered for the Mayday for Marriage rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. “While our troops battle terrorists and tyrants abroad, a parallel battle rages here on our soil for the family and ultimately the future of our nation.”1

as "to have marriage stricken from the Constitution?"

What politician or electorate would possibly agree to that?

I think you're straying from your goal.

decision of creating a separate but equal class by having it called one thing for one group and something different for another

but you're using words like "class" and "group", whereas, I would assume the CA SC is talking about all citizens at the same time.

You ask:
"Why go to such an extreme as to have marriage stricken from the Constitution?

What politician or electorate would possibly agree to that?"

They just did JUST THAT for gay people.

But rather than completely revoke the term "marriage" in favor of "civil unions" (because let's face it: that would never pass -- the straights would never agree to have the status symbol definition of "marriage" taken away from them)....

We should put a referendum on the ballot that's a Constitutional Amendment saying how any two legal adult Californians of sound mind have the unrevokable right to the exact same contractual protections that prevent any other parties from usurping their domestic parity.

This would, in a sense, "constitutionalize" the concept of civil unions into California's State Constitution; if it passes (which I feel it would), and then the wingnuts try to put another referendum on the California ballot in a later election cycle to dissolve same-sex civil unions, then we'll have a stronger case to make in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in terms of legalizing same-sex marriage for all LGBT Americans.

...for "civil unions." Why should anyone be satisfied with that?

If a human being states that they don't want a civil union, and it is not sufficient for their needs--they are entitled to the option that is available to other human beings. At least that's the way I've always seen it.

Have a proposition to ban propositions. Do people realize that the resources spent on getting gay marriage in this state and now all the resources spent getting it out of this state exceeds the GDP of Australia. How many people would that have fed for how long I wonder?

I was in Hollister a few days before the election and there was a group standing in front of a store on a corner with a bunch of Y on 8 signs. Inside was the store owner carefully painting on the windows "Going out of business - Everything must go!"

The real marriage vows do not happen in a ceremony, they happen in private, with another. Simple vows of love, trust and understanding - a commitment is made a promise is made to another and another makes similar promises in kind. Funny the couples I know that are "married" and have been for 20 years never were married in a church or a court. They moved into the area, or met, and presented themselves as a couple to the community and in the perception of others, they were married. Those marriages are still together and have a much better track record then marriages sanctioned by the state that usually end in divorce or separation.

I used to believe that the nice thing about traditional marriage was the bride taking the grooms last name. But now with so many hyphenated, convoluted surnames it is more confusing then ever.

Just because the state sanctions something doesn't mean that it is something that you need. It is just another system of classification and organization.

I've heard that the tax codes are different for married couples and single filing jointly. Just think about that for a second, there are two things in there- One, people are marrying for money, and that is a bad idea right from the start., and Two, I'd like to see a show of hands for anyone that is actually thinking about paying taxes again, ever.

Why does the government license pastors and random individuals to marry people?

When my husband and I got married, we requested a waver of the then waiting period in the state in which we lived. We had to petition a justice of the peace. The justice gave us a scolding (we were very, very young) and the closest thing to marital counseling that we got. He simply said he would let us marry precipitously, but he didn't want to see us in divorce court ever. He never did, and neither did anyone else.

We got married in a church after talking to the dear justice.

The reason that I remember this so clearly is that I was absolutely terrified by this justice and his stern demeanor. Church weddings are far too friendly, much too much fun. It takes a judge who decides divorce cases day after day to put the solemnity of marriage into perspective.

So, my proposal: all marriages should be first solemnized by divorce court judges and then by religious authorities. For some strange reason, I think that might reduce the numbers of divorces.