Interesting thread... I do have several questions, though, and forgive me if they've been addressed earlier here (since my time is short, I don't really have time to read every post):

1. Does anyone here truly believe that voters should trump court decisions? If so, isn't that a recipe for tyranny of the majority? I've always figured that one of the fundamental reasons for the rule of law is to safeguard the rights of minorities... how can the courts perform this function if they are subserviant to the majority of voters?

2. If you're willing to give the Government the power to tell you who you can't marry, aren't you also implicitly giving them the power to tell you who you can marry? Is anyone comfortable with Government having that kind of power?

3. As far as the State vs. Religion debate is concerned, if a particular Church is opposed to gay marriage, how can the State compel them to perform gay marriages? Wouldn't that be a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment clause? By the same token, though, why should any Church oppose State recognition of gay civic marriages?

4. If a gay couple is married under the authority of the State of California, then what would be the Constitutional basis for any other State to bar recognition of that marriage? If Utah recogizes the marriage of a straight couple from Wyoming, then how could they Constitutionally deny recognition of the marriage of a gay couple from California?