The OCRegister.com has a nicely written opinion piece on California’s Proposition 8:

The state Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental individual right that must be provided equally to all people desiring to marry. Allowing same-sex couples to share in this right does not denigrate or degrade the marriages of the vast majority of people who enter into the traditional man-woman form of marriage. It strikes us as simple fairness.

[…]

In an ideal world, the state would have little or no role in defining or regulating so intimate a relationship as marriage. However, the state has inserted itself into all too many aspects of our private lives. Given that it has done so, it is only fair that it afford equal protection to all who choose to make loving lifelong commitments to one another. We recommend a “no” vote on Prop. 8.

They raise a good point. Interesting to see such a notoriously “conservative” community paper take a stand for progress. Given that, why should a regulatory body be asked to deny equal-protection by constitution? What harm, or risk, is being addressed by Proposition 8? The Proposition seems like a colossal waste of time and energy, to me, especially compared with more pressing issues of real economic and social consequence like privacy, health care and education.