How to answer a question with a million answers?

[count_01]

Many of which are themselves questions?

I am about to suggest that

Comments

[xerhino]

What would Alexander Hamilton say? Heh, yes, he'd agree with you. This is one of the failings of democracy, IMHO. I hope that, in the end, democracy fixes it, but I think it will more likely be the court system.

[hermine_93]

I concur. If marriage is a religious matter, the government ought to stay out of it. If it is not a religious matter, the government ought not to impose one religion's taboos on it. The problem is that it is both, but either way, prop (h)8 is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds -- it is either an infringement of my religious freedom or imposition of one religious group's limitations on what should be a secular legal contract

[count_01]

A fair point, but I was paraphrasing Anthony Kennedy, the remaining privacy hawk on the big bench. Sure, there are exceptions, although I would characterize any violation of one of the members of the sacred union as a breech of that sanctity, and therefore the "curtain" which seals what goes on there against prying eyes, or ought to in most cases. Just as no spouse (in most states) can be compelled to testify against his or her spouse, there's certainly nothing forbidding it either. (except in a few cases, wherein testimony against a spouse is inadmissible a priori, which I think is an unnecessary invitation to the kinds of beastly behavior you just mentioned.)