This ignores the federal benefits of marriage (taxation and immigration, for instance), as well as the fact that DOMA allows states to ignore gay marriages performed in other states.

As with civil rights legislation, federal laws arise out of the experimentation of states. California's move in favour of gay marriage (disgracefully late; 5 other states + DC already have it) is widely recognized as a stepping-stone to a federal ruling on the matter.

So: it's both untrue to say that gays in California have equal rights, and were it true it would be irrelevant anyway.

I suggest reading the decision which rebuts this point, or I can simply point to Brown v Board which enshrined the notion that separate institutions are "inherently unequal."

More importantly though I think you miss the extent to which the "rights" provided by the California Family Code fail to encompass the rights protected by the constitution. The right to adopt is orthogonal to the right be free from discrimination and a state sponsored determination of inferiority.

As for the culture war, I don't doubt that 100 years from now it will still be going on, under a different name, and with as much validity and import as it has today. This is not a mean or petty distinction being discussed here, but one of lasting societal influence and implication.

You have clear disdain for the debate, probably engendered by the disingenuous rhetoric on both sides, however I would urge you to put aside the cynicism for a moment and remember that this really does matter.

  I’m sorry but that’s just BS.   Brown vs. Board was about keeping people in separate facilities where things could never be completely equal.  In that case separate is inherently unequal.  Legal rights on the other hand are abstract meaning they can be equal if the law says they are.

> Legal rights on the other hand are abstract meaning they can be equal if the law says they are.

But the law does not say they're equal, as has already been pointed out to you. And yes, pointing to civil unions — which embody a subset of the legal rights granted to legally married couples — as a justification for not granting full marriage rights to homosexual couples is a perfect demonstration of the fallacy of "separate but equal" institutions.

If civil unions really were a perfectly fine substitute for legally recognized marriage, do you think the civil rights movement would have been so up in arms about Proposition 8?

This is the usual argument taken but what many fail to realize is that while a State can declare that domestic partners have the same rights under STATE laws. States cannot guarantee the same rights under Federal laws. Because the federal laws use the word marriage, domestic partners are not included and do not receive any of the federal benefits.

Declaring it marriage does fill the current gap of equal rights.

Hey Tom, you didn't seem to address the issue I brought up. :(

You stated that prop 8 has nothing to do with people's rights.

I stated that is does. When it is in effect they have none of the marriage rights under federal law. Less rights would mean that it does have something to do with people's rights.

How would you reconcile this with your statement about how "Prop 8 has nothing to do with people’s rights." ?

States have their own laws for recognizing marriage so it doesn't matter what the state itself recognizes. Thats why you dont see the words "federal law" anywhere in the plantiffs case (page 5 in case you missed it)

You are right only if you believe that a marriage certificate is equal only to the sum of it's associated legal perks. It's obvious that neither opponents nor proponents believe this.

This actually supports the judges decision based on the opinion that...

"...the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

White mother explains to daughter: "THEY have to use THAT drinking fountain. They AREN'T ALLOWED to use ours."

Another example: A college grants Bachelors (BS) degrees. Gay people get a IG instead. Who in their right mind wants an IG! Employers wouldn't know what they are, or bother to understand them. Since all of their friends aspire to get BS degrees, employers would think an IG must be inferior -- why would anyone in their right mind make a second label for the exact same thing, if not to discriminate?

EDIT: To the downvoter -- if you read the ruling, my examples ARE the crux of the gay marriage debate. The state is condoning discrimination simply by making a second label for the exact same thing. By rule of law they are identical, but socially they are not -- the new label is undesirable by everyone. (No married couples would switch.) Hence, simply having two labels for the same thing and forcing gay couples to use the inferior one IS discimination.

Please read the ruling. I don't think I have ever had to tell this many people to RTFA.

I did read the ruling and I’m sorry but it doesn’t change anything.  The whole premise of the case was built on people claiming they were discriminated against but that IS ALREADY ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA.  The question presented by the person who made the comment I responded to was  “were people being denied specific rights?” and I’m sorry but they aren’t.  

Then I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand Constitutional law. One of the first lines in the article is the proposal that this proposition be rendered as applicable to homosexuals as a suspect class, meaning that the law should be rendered as a judgement under strict scrutiny. The circumstances and testimony clearly supported overturning the law on the basis of strict scrutiny.