California Supremes Rule on Prop 8

The argument is now purely semantic. It means nothing to ban something in name only. Whether the term marriage is applied or not, gay unions are now part of the social landscape.

The argument about extending equal rights was not semantic - but that battle was won by the homosexual community. They are now and forever entitled to all of the legal protections of marriage in the state of California.

The brouhaha has to do with the terrible precedent set by the passage of Prop. 8 - denying rights to a minority group at the ballot box is not a legitimate practice in a constitutional republic. That’s why the court ruled that the amendment does not change the rights of homosexuals to the benefits of marriage - it only impacts the use of the term “marriage” in reference to these rights.

The drama was not due to the “Gay Lobby” - the drama was due to a misguided amendment enshrining discrimination in the California Constitution. The GOP hoped to exploit this drama to improve voter turnout, which worked up to a point. Blaming the drama on the Gay Lobby is just asinine.

The ruling is a minor setback for gay marriage advocates, but a major blow to conservative aspirations to define the rights of homosexuals. Gay marriage will come to pass, under that name or some other. Eventually the distinction will be seen for the fiction that it is.

Californians redefined the word marriage for the purposes of civil society, with the caveat that the rights of marriage are still available to gays whether the institution is called marriage or not. So the bigots can call homosexual unions by some other term, and will force the state to do so as well. But blind justice will still demand that this separate category be equal to the unspeakable marriage of gays. Except for those who are already married.