Prop 8 overturned, marriage fundamentalists pissed.

Prop 8 was overturned today.

And not only was it overturned, but the judge found the proposition to be unconstitutional. Early Thursday, proposition 8 backers filed for an appeal and now most legal analysts expect the case ultimately will be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court finds proposition 8 unconstitutional as well, which is very likely due to the recent appointment of Justice Kagan, it will bring the right of same sex marriage to every state. There are a few reasons why I view this as a major victory for the United States. But first, the good judge's notes.

In deciding the case, Walker offered a variety of findings that may be as important as the ruling itself. Among them were the following:

• "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
• "Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."
• "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."
• "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
• "Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."
• "The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
• "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

In my mind space, proposition 8 has always been a violation of civil liberty and the separation of church and state.

I think it's inherently discriminatory and that marriage is a right, and that everyone is entitled to choose a legal life partner. In the 1960s the courts made the difficult decision to grant equal rights to people of all race. Race isn't orientation, and I've heard people say that sexual orientation is a choice but I disagree. I think that race, orientation, and gender is something you are. Religion on the other hand, is a choice.

Probably the biggest argument I keep hearing from friends is that marriage is a spiritual pact. If it is, than whose God are going by? America's God? Then that would be include the buddhists, hindi, muslim, the agnostics and the universalists who don't know anything, and the atheists who think we are ALL nuts. There has to be a separation separation of church and state. If you want to be married by an Adventist Pastor in an Adventist Church, fine. But then let the gays be married by ordained people of the Universal Life Church. Churches do not own marriage. You don't have to believe in God to be married. Marriage is for humans. That includes everyone in the United States that is not like you.

So why not call 'marriage' something different. Why can't the gays just be happy with that for Christ's sake? The larger issue is still equality. Let's say I wanted to apply for a Director of PR position. Before I apply, I know that no woman has ever been a Director of PR at Loma Linda before, but I STILL apply because I know that I have just the same qualifications as the men applying alongside myself.

I'm given the job. But instead of giving me the title, Director of PR, they give me another title, Associate Director. I'm still doing the same job as a director, overseeing the same people, making the same decisions. But I'm STILL not equal at the end of the day.

This is about equality for everyone, and preventing decisions to be made by a church whose God is not everyone's God. It's a hard pill to swallow but I think the sooner we all swallow it the better: Not everyone is like us. It's okay, and even though we may not see each other's point of view we are entitled to the exact same opportunities as the next guy.

About the overruling of prop 8, a popular vote in Southern California:

About 2/3 of California voters overturned the Rumford Act when they passed Proposition 14, which, like Proposition 8, had amended the California Constitution. Proposition 14 said Californians could indeed refuse to sell or rent to anyone for any reason. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 14 violated the 14th Amendment, and it didn’t matter if 100% of Californians had voted for it -- it was racial discrimination, and unconstitutional. The equal protection clause that Walker cited in his Proposition 8 ruling is part of that same 14th Amendment.

Sometimes the people vote wrong, folks. I thought that during the 2004 election.