Proposition 8 repealed in California

More than three years after California voters passed Proposition 8, which denied gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the discriminatory law unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision.

The court argued that because gay couples had already been granted the right to marry, it was unconstitutional for that right to be revoked via ballot measure.

During initial arguments in Perry v. Brown, supporters of Proposition 8 made every argument possible, including that because gays cannot procreate, they should not be allowed to marry. Arguments like this seem to ignore the reality of the millions of married straight couples who never have children either by choice, age or infertility.

The court rightly concluded that "Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California and to officially reclassify their relationship and families and inferior to those opposite sex couples."

In other words, backers of the measure sought to do so out of animus for gay people and their families—in other words, bigotry.

Predictably, those opposed to marriage equality—including all of the Republican presidential candidates except Ron Paul—responded by screaming in self-righteous indignation.

Rick Santorum howled to an audience on Wednesday about the injustice of the Ninth Circuit Court inferring that those opposed to equality are "bigots." Oh, the humanity.

Even Newt Gingrich, who never asked voters if he had a right to any of his three marriages, came out swinging in the defense of "traditional marriage."

Fox News's Bill O'Reilly trotted out the tired accusation of "judicial activism," telling his audience that the judges "don't care about you."

"What you want really doesn't matter," O'Reilly said, referring to the 52 percent of Californians who voted for Proposition 8. "Because [the judges] say this is unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry."

Well, yes Mr. O'Reilly, the Constitution actually does trump the tyranny of the majority.

I can only imagine what the Fox News headlines would have been like in 1967 when Loving v. Virginia overturned bans on interracial marriage. However, I suppose it would've said something about "activist judges" "redefining marriage" and ignoring the "will of the people."

The fact is, when it comes to the constitutional rights of a minority, the "will of the people" is meaningless. The "will of the people" in 1967 was that interracial couples shouldn't have their love recognized by the state in the form of marriage.

Guess what? The "will of the people" didn't matter then, and it doesn't matter now. Incidentally, a 2011 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 53 percent of Americans now favor marriage equality.

Even with the decision, the fight isn't over yet. Anti-equality forces have pledged to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, where a landmark ruling on marriage equality could take place. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear Perry v. Brown, it might be years before another case reaches the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the narrowness of the Ninth Circuit's ruling means that this case could be limited to California, making it less likely that the Supreme Court will hear it.

The Ninth Circuit Court said that because California already affords gays and lesbians the all the rights and benefits associated with marriage (except for the word "marriage"), the court didn't have to rule whether or not the Constitution absolutely guaranteed a right for gay couples to marry.

Yet in the same court opinion, the court explained the importance of the word "marriage":

"A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ‘registered domestic partnership' does not."

For committed gay couples, having the right to marry—that social celebration of their love—will mean more than words can express, not only to the loving, committed couple who desire to solidify their commitment, but to every kid growing up knowing there's something different about him or her.

Too many teens have taken their own lives because society said their difference made them inferior. Too many couples, after living lives spent hiding their love for one another, have died without ever having that love recognized by their communities.

The time for full, nationwide marriage equality is now. We cannot be content to lose another generation to injustice.