Prop 8: California Gays are Now 2nd and 3rd Class Citizens


Just a quick observation to add to the volumes I’ve written lately on Prop 8 (see:

California Upholds Proposition 8, Preserves Existing Gay Marriages

Did Proposition 8 Court Read Right-Wing Blogs?

Proposition 8 Ruling is a Catch 88)(I especially recommend the 1st and 3rd).

The California Supreme Court’s ruling has created a new, lower class for its gay citizens to occupy.  1st class is for teh straightz!  Lotsa legroom and right to get married, plus a velvety sleep mask.  2nd class are the 18,000 gay couples who lucked out and got married before the passage of Prop 8.  They get a bag of peanuts and a TV to share with the whole row.

Then, there are the 3rd class, teh regular gays, who get stuffed in the luggage compartment.

In all seriousness, I do wonder if a mini-martyr-movement will spring up, with married LGBTQ people burning their marriage certificates in solidarity with their unmarried brethren and sethren.  Maybe, or maybe just burning a symbolic copy.

This is the problem with “splitting the baby.”  You just make a bloody mess.

P.S. This guy is dead wrong.  Prop 8 may indeed be good for gay marriage in the long run,  but not for the reason he says.  Kicking the ball back to voters is the opposite of progress, and the essence of the flaw in the court’s ruling.

If Prop 8 is good for gay marriage in the long run, it will be because it brings on a successful equal protection challenge in the US Supreme Court.


  1. On the plus side, the stereotype of gays being well organized is being broken down.

  2. The court? What does the court have anything to do with it? This is what the people of California decided! How DARE the Supreme Court, or any court of this nation, think that they have any right whatsoever to go against what the voters of the State decide. If they are going to change the Constitution of California in this matter, what are they going to do next- revoke the First Amendment?

  3. The court has everything to do with it Samuel. A large part of the court system’s actual function is to protect minority rights and protect against the tyranny of the mob in light of the Federal and State constitutions. If the voters of the state decided that interracial marriages were no longer acceptable — should the court find that law unconstitutional? If the voters of the state found that not attending at least one Christian service a week — should the court find that law unconstitutional?

    How DARE someone underestimate the importance of the court in protecting the minority
    How DARE someone believe that popular opinion should take precedence over holding true to our American principles, even when it is hard and not enjoyable

    Courts do not change constitutions, they do not revoke amendments, they have the difficult job of interpreting laws in the light of the other the precedence of other laws in a manner that will create what we believe to be justice.

  4. Gee, how silly to think that a court which was the first to strike down miscegenation laws in the US might have had the guts to do the same again. How would they dare, Samuel? Since when do the “voters” get to decide on the rights of the minorities? The whole point of the “Equal Protection” clause of the Constitution is to give *equal* protection to all citizens, even those who aren’t very popular with the ruling classes.

    What do you care, anyway? Nobody’s asking you to marry another man if you don’t want to. You have no dog in this fight.

  5. RULES!

  6. I do believe that in time gay marriage will be the law in all 50 states. Today reading at I found an idea that I think in time would be the ideal solution to this debate: Get the government out of the marriage business.

    Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who backed Barack Obama’s presidential bid, has endorsed replacing marriage with a neutral “civil license,” a proposal law professor Robert P. George called a “terrible idea” that would make the government neglect a vital social institution.

    Speaking to, Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec said that although his solution to disputes over the definition of marriage might be “awkward,” it would “untie the state from this problem” by creating a new terminology that would apply to everyone, homosexual or not. “Call it a ‘civil license’,” he said.

    “The net effect of that, would be to turn over–quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” he said.

    I suggest that you read the whole thing. By the way, Robert P. George doesn’t like the idea and he writes:

    “It’s a pre-political institution,” he said. “It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It’s the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured.”

    “The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare,” he continued, saying that governments, economies and legal systems all rely on the family to produce “basically honest, decent law abiding people of goodwill – citizens – who can take their rightful place in society.”

    To which I can only respond: Where’s the evidence that non-traditional families (gay families, one parent family, grandparent raising grandkids, etc) cannot produce “basically honest, decent law abiding people of goodwill”? Do all those criminals in jail, drug dealers, wife beaters, child molester come from “non-traditional” families? I’ll bet lots of them come from “traditional families”.

    By the way, I just found out that the lord of the darkness, the “emperor” behind evil “darth vader” George W. Bush, Mr. Dick Cheney himself…. fully supports gay marriage…

  7. Marriage is a civil license which just happens to allow clergy to perform it. if you want a divorce you go to the courts, not your priest or minister, so why is getting married any different?

  8. The real problem is the gays dont want to respect the law they want it there way. Just like the blacks.

  9. There is a lot of evidence that supports the idea that the traditional model of family is the “ideal” for rearing children. Non traditonal isn’t the best way to rear kids because a whole host of psychological problems arise when there is either a mom or a dad absent in the child’s upbringing. For example, girls who are reared without benefit of a dad, are very susceptible to the first male that tells her he loves her because these girls tend to be starving for male attention. So, there is more of a tendency for these girls to crave love in men who will treat them poorly and they won’t leave because they think they deserve it. Boys need male role models, not two women to teach them how to be a man. It’s just a fact, sorry if you don’t like it. I don’t support gays having children at all. I live in CA and I voted for Prop 8 and I lived in the gay community for many yrs. I am straight. It’s not fear that makes us not want gay marriage. It’s that it is better for families and society to keep marriage the way it is. This isn’t a civil rights issue. It has somehow become overblown. I don’t think that many gays even cared about getting married before. I never spoke to one who wanted the “right” to get married. Most gays I knew when I lived in the gay community didn’t even stay together for long. The gay community should keep it’s focus on fundraising to eradicate AIDS. That is the main problem for the men in my opinion.

  10. I was married twice. The first husband had a father who was Gay. Came out after 28 years of marriage… His thoughts on Gay marriage… Unneeded and un wanted in his life. He went on to spend the next 20 years with his partner. If all legal issues were put into a bond /contract… no need for a marriage! There should never be a “marriage” between boys/boys- girls/girls period! What next? Boyfriend / girlfriend can get benefits (actually they do in the airline industry).
    I hate to say that I am not religious because I do believe in God. I also realize that at times there is an issue with gender and hormones at birth. What I believe is happening here is trying to stuff same sex relationships on those who belive in a man and a women. What’s next? Man marrying sheep? Woman marrying a donkey?
    Hell I LOVE my dogs but beastallity is not my style. Men shouldnot be bound to men or woman to woman through a LEGAL process and it was intended to be man and woman who “create” a family. Having a 3rd person involved does not count . Believe me, I do not judge you on who you have sex with, Ijudge the fact you want legal rights not intended for you. Give it up man! Get a lawyer… sign rights over to each other, I did that and I amlegally married.

    Forceing individuals to accept same sex marriages Is not right in my lifetime.

  11. For the person that said get the courts out… they have no business… YES THEY DO! the Federal and highest state courts of the land can look at state laws and the constitutionability of them. When people vote that they DO NOT WANT a law forced on them, they have every right to ask the courts to step in.

    Betty and Betty and Don and Don do not need to be married. If you can prove to me there is no God (adam and eve). I will personally prove there is no link to being gay and DNA (ADAM v, ADAN, EVE & EVE).

  12. Well, I don’t know what this has to do with civil rights, or equal prtection nonsense. All this wasted rhetoric, anyway. There is no “right” to get married, in the first place. Not for opposite sex, not for same sex. It is not in our constituion as a defined right, nor even implied. Marrieage has been supported by societies for hundreds of years, and the insitution came about in law simply as a recognition of the special relationship and committment that a man and a woman have for each other, forming a family, and in most cases, raising children.
    So, what’s all the ruckus about.?

  13. This is complete nonsense. The USA is a democracy which means the laws and actions are based on a majority vote of the people. Be it a matter or life or death, right or wrong, the key to the government’s actions MUST be in the hands of the voting people. Must we also remind voters that there are already many other states in the USA that allow gay marriage. To think that the entire country must be forced without a vote is preposterous and unconstitutional. Bad news as well, when they said “all men were created equal.” you might want to ask George Washington and John Hancock how they felt about gays. Probly not a positive image in their mind.

    Marriage was created and has always been run by the church. The government got involved to limit WHO could get married, ie gays, incest, animals, etc. It was also kept tabs on for health, security and child support for the sake of the law. This in effect violated their stance of separation of church and state but no one really seemed to care.

    However, voters should approve an equal benefits of marriage deal where same sex partners get health and security benefits from their partners. That is only reasonable.

  14. “If the voters of the state found that not attending at least one Christian service a week — should the court find that law unconstitutional?”

    If it’s in the Constitution, absolutely.

  15. I guess people shouldn’t really bother voting on anything. Seriously, apathy and the fact that more courts are legislating from the bench and reducing voters to merely hurdles getting in the way of their own personal agenda.
    I personally could give a rats ass about this issue, but I do care that an a huge majority of people from one of the most Leftist states in our country voted against it and more and more scumbag and weasely activists are looking to upsurp the will of the people….again…. through the courts.
    Make no mistake, this is not a civil rights issue even though some are trying to make it that. If I were Black I’d be rightfully pissed off by it.

  16. Gays are not “second” or “third” or anything different from anyone else.

    Marriage is defined as between “One Man & One Woman”. Just the way it is.

    Gays need to come up with another definition if they don’t like “Civil Unions”.

    Just the way it is. The great folks here in California have spoken. And I’m one of them.

    End of story.

  17. Deciding whether a law is constitutional isn’t legislating, it’s “doing their job.”

  18. […] Prop 8: California Gays are Now 2nd and 3rd Class Citizens […]

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s