I believe this story presents the situation as it stands, gives the major points of contention. It takes a few more words to adequately explore all the trends involved.

A split High Court reaffirms their earlier decision on same-sex marriage.

Well balanced article which presents both sides of the issue without taking a position--letting the statements speak for themselves. Interestingly, ultra conservative justifications seem trite, preposterous, and utterly quixotic in nature as shown by this neocon lawyer's statement: “I don’t believe at the end of the day the people will allow four people to rewrite marriage.”

This is the way news should be reported. Fair, balanced, sourced. It also gives partisan opinions from both sides fairly and without comment. It provides background and practical consequences of the court's action. Good job on a controversial issue.

This is a civil-rights issue, and has always been a civil-rights issue from day one. We've let the extreme -right frame and dicate this issue since it came to the forefront. All rightous Americans of all political strips are to blame for that. This is NOT a states-right issue, like gun-rights. There should be a national, of federal, law stating all Americans be treated the same, which means the right to marry. It's basic civil -rights.

No mention of the outrageous abuse of judicial power by the court. Typical of the Chronicle - more of a comedy show than a newspaper.

Clarifies question for Californians. Listening to radio it sounded like the Supreme Court had voided the initiative signatures.