Court upholds Prop. 8

First of all people should understand exactly what the Supreme Court ruled upon. It was not about the Supreme Court respecting the will of the people, nor was it about the constitutionality of same sex marriage. It was the question is Prop. 8 an amendment or a revision. Nothing more nothing less.

The allowing of the 18,000 marriages to stand, is a simple rule of law. Typically changes to constitution especially ones dealing with the limitation of exsisting rights are not retroactive, unless there are express wording indicating else wise. Here there is nothing that says it was to be retroactive. To the contrary during the campaigning the proponents of Prop. 8 even indicated that it would not effect existing marriages. Another example of the many pieces of untrue propaganda to sway the undecided vote.

While I think the end result of Prop. 8 is a travesty, and is discriminatory on its face, I understand the Court's ruling, although I don't agree with it. I believe anytime equal protection is impinged upon where the end result is disparate treatment to a single suspect class that constitutes a revision, perhaps not quantitative but certainly qualitative.

One can argue that all the same rights are available through Domestic Partnerships, there are distinctions albeit minor to some, those distinctions make the Domestic Partnership the less desirable title. First, a marriage license is filed with County Recorder, and it is a two step process, one you file and pay the fees, the second it is solemnized (i.e. you exchange vows), with signatures of the officiant, and one or two witnesses, depending on the type of license. One is not considered married until both those steps are completed. Compare that to a Domestic Partnership which is filed with the Secretary of State, a single step process. The applicants simply complete the form with the applicants' notarized signature, mail it back to the Secretary of State, and you are Domestic Partners. Tell me which is more desirable? Which one appears to be more valued and serious a commitment.

To argue one has the same rights only called something different is to argue "Separate but Equal" is appropriate. History has taught us that separate is never equal.

To the proponents of Prop. 8, how does somebody else's marriage (gay or straight) effect you? What is it to you, other than you find homosexuality distastful. I would like to hear a credible argument for not allowing same sex marriage that is not based upon religion or the fact that you do not like homosexuality.

As for the rally, everyone the constitutional right of assembly, or perhaps we can impinge upon that right as well. Also those rallying would be more appropriately called Civil Rights Advocates not Gay Rights Advocates. This is not a Gay issue, this is an issue of Civil Rights. Keep in mind that Prop 8 effects all of us, gay or straight, anyone of us can become the disfavored class at any time and have rights taken away.

Hear hear, Barbara!

Wendy, since this is just a blog and all, I'm just curious if you have an opinion on this issue, as a Chinese American.

In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act, along with the Geary Act were the few acts of legislation that singled out a specific minority to deprive them of the right to be naturalized citizens, in addition to restricting Chinese immigration to the US, which meant all the men who were here could not send for their wives and families.

This inequity was never completely resolved until 1965, with immigration reform.

Prop 8 is just another case of a majority trampling on the rights of a minority. Just because it was legal, doesn't make it right.

Thank God those chinks got here ok to build our railroad system.

As a Chinese-American reporter who sees the word "chink" on her blog, I would resort to something my sources love to tell me, Stephen, "No comment."

Mr T -

Stay classy.

Everyone else -

This is a textbook example of what is known as a 'Pyrrhic victory'.

While a particularly spiteful portion of the electorate managed to stop marriage equality in its tracks in this state - for the time being - this is a war they will lose.

Demographic shifts (old bigots dying, younger voters taking their spots) are already taking place that will render this matter moot in time. 5-10 years, most likely.

Check this out:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5040555.shtml

One wonders if they'll be crowing about "the will of the electorate" when it happens.

Remember 5 years ago when they were trying to prevent even civil unions? Lately they've been practically begging for homosexual couples to settle for them.

Face it: These people already know in their cold, black little hearts that they've lost this fight. Setbacks or not, the tide of progress will side against bigotry. It has before, it will again.

- J