Prop 8 won't die, but neither will 18,000 marriages

According to the L.A. Times, it looks like the California State Supreme Court is leaning toward upholding Prop 8, but allowing the 18,000 gay couples who got married before its passage to stay married. The L.A. Times has a heart-wrenching article about those 18,000 couples and their strange new position as some of the few inhabitants of "marriage islands."

The Court has been debating the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November initiative that banned gay marriage. Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote; the debate lies in whether the initiative was an amendment or a revision. A revision requires a 2/3 vote from the state legislature before appearing on a ballot; an amendment does not.

In the interest of full disclosure, I voted "no" in November. I'm straight. But I'm also equal parts Mexican, Salvadorian, and American. And it makes me sick that this huge group of people who have done nothing but be born gay -- in the same way I have been born with a minority status -- are arbitrarily denied such a private and profound right.

I call bullshit on the concept of "protecting" or "restoring the definition of" marriage. The only impact gay marriage would have is that gays would get married. It's simple bigotry that passed Prop 8; that and sheer ignorance.



The fact is, domestic partnerships create a separate, and, despite even the best intentions for equality, lesser-perceived class of people based on an unchangeable aspect of their existence. Homosexuality is shown in more and more studies to be more about genetics and biology than about choice.

Those who say that homosexuality is inherently wrong an abomination or that it is "not natural" because gay couples are not "fruitful" are committing the Naturalistic Fallacy. You can't apply moral values to nature. "Natural" is just too subjective a term; given this logic, infertile heterosexual couples (who through sheer biology cannot exchange DNA to form children) are also unnatural, and therefore their sexual relationship is morally wrong ... yet their marriage is still recognized by the state government.

Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional in the Supreme Court's 1954 ruling in Brown vs Board of education., an admittedly different issue altogether, but eerily echoing the same sentiments. Then there's 1970's Loving vs. Virginia decision from the Supreme Court, which said that:




There are a number of reasons domestic partnerships are not on the same footing with marriage. If both were equal except in name, it would make sense to eliminate one or the other for the government's purposes. If all couples -- gay and straight -- were civil unions under the law and marriages under whatever churches they preferred, we wouldn't have this problem. But it's much easier to make a change where a precedent has already been set because everyone in government and civilian life is clear on what "marriage" means.

I only hope that the history we're making now will be viewed in the harshest light possible. There is no excuse for discrimination under the law.