Seperate but Equal?

In school, teachers show students the horrific treatment of the African American people, and their struggle for equality. There were some parts of history where they were segregated in their schools, busses, and many of their day to day activities. The courts finally saw the discrimination for what it was. In 1954, in the well known case of Brown V. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal was discrimination which overruled the previous precedent set forth by the case of Plessey V. Ferguson. The same type of discrimination is being implemented today, but just on a different class of people. On November 4, 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8 which put an amendment in the constitution stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” (protectmarriage.com). Proponents of Prop 8 argue that it would not affect the rights given to gay and lesbian partners, (protectmarriage.com)   Others would argue that Proposition 8 has many parallels to the segregation that was projected upon the African American community in the earlier decade of the 21^st century.

What is most disconcerting about this action is that it only took a simple majority of people to take away rights of a specific class. In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, which paved the way for legal, gay marriage in California. Between the months of May and November, 18,000 gay men and women were married (HRC.org). 18,000 is a lot of people in such a short amount of time. There were many people affected by the vote on proposition 8,the 18,000 people included. Although the California Supreme Court ruled that those who were married during that time period would retain their valid marriages, is that really true? If the words of proposition 8 are looked at more closely, it says that only a marriage between a man and women is VALID or RECOGNIZED in California. This could be interpreted that NO gay marriage would be recognized in California, including those who were married in the couple months when gay marriage was legal.

Although the proposition was passed, there have been lawsuits brought about to challenge the proposition. After the proposition passed, challenges were made to the State Supreme court challenging that the proposition was a revision of the constitution, in which case the procedure was not done correctly. The State Supreme Court struck this down and upheld proposition 8. Recently there has been a fight over the proposition in the federal court system in which the proposition was challenged on its constitutionality. In April of 2010 a federal court judge ruled that the proposition was unconstitutional because it unfairly targeted gay men and women (New York Times).  This was a temporary win for those in favor of gay marriage, however it was short lived due to the stay placed until the challenge reaches higher courts.

Even though there was a stay, some people believe that it should be lifted. Attorney General Kamala Harris is one of the supporters of equality who believes the stay should be lifted (Washington Post). These people believe that the stay should be lifted because the gay community has been through enough discrimination as it is. Supporters of the proposition believe that the wishes of the people should be granted until the Federal Supreme Court has decided on the case. I think that both sides have a great point, but I have to agree that the stay should continue. Although I do believe that proposition 8 should be struck down, I think if gay people were to be married and proposition 8 was found to be constitutional and stay in place, the marriages that took place while the decision was litigated in federal district court could later be questioned. Proposition 8 should be abolished because not only does it target a specific class of people, but it is justifying a separate but equal attitude. This type of attitude is unacceptable, and has plagued the existence of man for a long time. The fight for equality for the gay community still exists, and will exist until hatred depletes in the hearts of all. 

References:

"California's Proposition 8 (Same-Sex Marriage)." New York Times. 17 Aug. 2010. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/californias_proposition_8_samesex_marriage/index.html?scp=1&sq=california's%20proposition%208&st=cse

 "HRC | Prop 8 Upheld." HRC | Human Rights Campaign | Home. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.hrc.org/10459.htm?gclid=CJ_2kp3M76cCFRphgwod8lTzZA>.

 Press, Associated. "Appeals Court Won’t Allow Gay Marriages in Calif. While Appeal of Prop. 8 Ban Proceeds - The Washington Post." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - Washingtonpost.com. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/appeals-court-wont-allow-gay-marriages-in-calif-while-appeal-of-prop-8-ban-proceeds/2011/03/23/ABtL2EKB_story.html>.

"Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » Ballot Arguments." Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » Home Page.    Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/ballot-arguments>.