Gay marriage wins passes the U.S Supreme Court for California; a win for Democracy???

Possibly no, but when did democracy have much to do with the U.S judicial system especially concerning Proposition 8 in California?

I listened to the news that the U.S Supreme court struck down Proposition 8 in California, and had really mixed feelings about it  somewhat negative because of my own recent experiences dealing with Gays, and the intrusive aspects of them affecting my life and family.

Then feeling after listening to newscasters about the Proposition 8 defeat, that it was basically harmless and good, its defeat would allow Gays and lesbians to finally obtain legal status as a marriage. What's wrong with two people being happy?  I don't have much against that.

 Other reason I was sort of surprised by the decision is because of what someone once told me that, ....he "didn't think the ruling would fail because then the Government and the State of California ,might end up paying out a lot of money to there employees  of these Civil unions"...can they really afford to at a time they are think of cutting pensions and should we really care? Maybe that's why the U.S supreme court avoided the larger questions of this ruling for the Nation.

Proposition 8 ; according to C-Span was a proposition on the voter ballot that made marriage between a man and woman is only legal union valid in California, I believe it was voter approved twice in California.

Its was struck down today by the U.S Supreme Court 5-4. The majority justices; Roberts, Ginsburg, Scalia, Breyer, and Kagan.  The minority justices; Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor.

God bless, C-Span, because I was able to listen to some of the Justice's of the U.S Supreme court listen to arguments concerning this Proposition...what I saw and heard was a little more disturbing than the placid opinion of Media newscasters.

That proposition was shot down because " the sponsors of Prop 8, lacked the legal right to appeal the initial ruling by the US District court, striking down the ballot measure."

So it wasn't so much that the U.S Supreme court, decided the issue, by it moral questions for the society for the people of California, or even there pocketbooks....they simply deferred to an earlier decision ...and have I got this right...the decision made in the 9th U.S court of appeals in California , by that Vonn Walker fellow?

In that case the opponents of Prop 8, got attorneys to appeal a decision made by the voters of California which was heard in 9th appeals courts, this was going to be decided in a in a closed court where the Proposition was defeated.

Today’s ruling is also significant because the 9th Circuit ruled that District Court Judge Jame. s Ware, who took over the Perry case when Judge Walker retired, was correct in denying a motion filed by Prop 8′s proponents to overturn Judge Walker’s decision on the grounds that he failed to disclose that he himself was in a long-term relationship with a man (which he did announce publicly after the decision was released). In a December 8 hearing on the motion to overturn Judge Walker’s decision, the 9th Circuit panel seemed deeply skeptical that Judge Walker’s ruling should be thrown out because of his orientation and relationship status. The 9th Circuit’s decision today is an important victory for the assumption of impartiality that our judicial system is based on, and demonstrates that LGBT judges are just as fit to preside over cases pertaining to LGBT rights as are their heterosexual counterparts.

In other words the judge was gay possibly at the time of that decision . So just how democratic is this process perhaps the Supreme Court merely was " passing the buck" on this issue.