Nobody is claiming its a right. Your arguing against a point nobody has made.
No, your very arguement is predicated upon the idea that it is a right since, thanks to my dangling carrot trick, you agree that gay marriage was never legislated. So, did you want to post your evidence or what, puss? Maybe you can cry about ad hominems some more since we both know that your quiver is empty.
Sure, I'll go and prove something I specifically said wasn't the case. 
I tellya, your interaction in this thread reminds me of Micheal Jackson's signature Moonwalk.
How exactly did I admit that?
Scroll up, lil guy. If you can't read the big words just sound them out.
Considering they aren't appealing the ruling, since they aren't as stupid as you, there won't be a SCOTUS reaction, and if there were the reaction would be "we don't have jurisdiction".
Yea, NO ONE has ANY interest in voicing the will of the people with LEGISLATION, eh?
The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be made to generate a federal marriage amendment.
"The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people," Barber said.
A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
Conservative leaders expressed outrage at the ruling and vowed to appeal.
"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Mathew Staver, Liberty Counsel president. "This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/
But the scope of the court's decision could be thrown into question by an initiative already heading toward the November ballot. The initiative would amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,6182317.story
Learn federalism, kid.
learn how to read, beyotch..
Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, who favors marriage only for opposite-sex couples, agreed that the impact could be enormous. "This is an engine that will produce a large number of marriage licenses," he said, adding that some couples would eventually move to other states and try to assert the validity of their licenses.
Federal and state laws say states need not recognize gay marriages from elsewhere, but those laws have yet to be tested.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-15-calif-gay-marriage_N.htm?csp=34
You really want me to post evidence?
Proof that Prop 22 didn't fail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)
Proof that the legislature in California didn't vote to ban gay marriage, and in fact voted the opposite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California
Any other basic facts you want me to spoon feed you?
HA! you still don't see how I made you clarify how the court ruled on something that was NOT legislation or within their jurisdiction to decide, eh?
Hey, maybe reliving 2004 will help you figure it out, stupid.
Wow...you really have no shame, do you? You have no idea what your talking about, don't even know the basics of federalism, don't even know the basics of the gay marriage ban, don't even know what prop 22 is, and you think you can talk about this issue?
Go educate yourself boy, then come back.
Your mommies might be impressed that you leaned a new word today but screaming Federalism over and over again is about as impressive as your quickness to rationalize your own ad hominems and shit talking. Indeed, feel free to email USA Today and tell them how smart you are. They will probably be as convinced as I am.
