CA voters long ago passed DOMA (defense of marriage act, defining marriage as one man and one woman). The state Supreme Court overturned the law as being unconstitutional. The voters responded by passing Prop 8, an amendment to the state's constitution that succinctly defines marriage as one man and one woman. Now the CA AG is refusing to defend it--he's fighting it, in fact--because it's "unconstitutional".

The original DOMA was overturned by the courts because it was unconstitutional. The people said, "Fine, we'll make it constitutional by amending the constitution." The AG now says the earlier court ruling, ostensibly based upon the old constitution, "overrules" the new, amended constitution. Talk about circular logic! Here's some more irony: the AG is correct in that no constitutional amendment can lawfully negate an inalienable right. He fails to mention why, though.

You can't lawfully negate an inalienable right because its inalienability is granted by God Almighty and not by man or his government. However, if you are appealing to the Almighty for the basis of inalienable rights--what other basis can there be?--you cannot then ignore the Almighty's definitions of those rights. Marriage is certainly a God-given right, but the Bible clearly defines marriage as a man and a woman (Biblical polygamy notwithstanding, a topic for another day) and condemns homosexuality several times and in both testaments.

The problem in CA is easy to understand. There are those who are living according to worldviews at least somewhat in alignment with the correct, Biblical one. Then there are those who are living in alternate worldviews where homosexuality is "moral" behavior. Each is also implicitly defining government and inalienable rights according to these clashing worldviews. The gay-marriage folks, though, seem too stupid to understand that you have no legitimate or even feasible basis for government sans Godly authority. In fact, theirs is the very definition of mob-rule, in contrast to the AG's similar but idiotic charges against the marriage-defenders.