Or else how can you justify the fact that 52.5% of the Californian electorate voted in favor of the motion that marriage should mean the union of a man and a woman only. Is our dislike for people who are sexually oriented differently so strong that we will stoop low enough to refuse marriage rights to two consenting individuals?

Proposition 8 is an eye opener, which leaves us with much soul searching to do. Does a gay marriage actually destroy the concept of a family, where children get a father and mother? Perhaps you need to consider how many parents have failed to provide a proper upbringing for their kids, in conventional marriages.
So basically prop 8 is built on a flawed premise.

After all there are 39 US states which have laws in place to prohibit gay marriage and out of them 30 of them have made it a part of their constitution. Only five US states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages. If this is anything to go by, proposition 8 will be hard to get rid of.

But if the ruling mirrors what State Judge Vaughn Walker has already stated in his landmark decision on prop 8, then we may be in for radical changes in many other states as well. And this will not be first time that a law against gay marriages has been abolished because the same has already happened in Massachusetts.

And it’s the facts or ‘findings of fact’ by Judge Walker which will perhaps decide what the Appeals Court deems fair. The basic premise of the current judgment is that both Equal Rights and Due Process tenets of the constitution of USA are violated by proposition 8.

The other facts found by the Judge pertain to marriage sexual orientation and the proposition itself. The strongest argument in favor of the Judge’s ruling will be that prop 8 discriminates between citizens of the US on the basis of their sexual orientation, something which is a slap on the face of the Constitution. The prop 8 defense is in for a hard time proving otherwise.

The sense that some justice has finally be done will culminate into greater euphoria only if the momentum against this proposition is maintained. It may be really tough to outlaw proposition 8 which was passed by public voting, in the Supreme Court, which does not have too many gay marriage backers.

But the good news is that the offices, of the California Governor as well as the US President, have issued statements against this ‘divisive and discriminatory’ law. Surely this will have a bearing on what the higher courts decide, even if it is against a marginal majority (52.5%) of Californian’s have decided.

In fact the supporters of this proposition had moved for a stay order even before the ruling was announced, which make sit clear that they knew what it was going to be. Their argument is that if they are not given time to appeal then there will be spate of same-sex marriages in these few days.

If the higher court does ultimately uphold proposition 8, these marriages will have to be annulled. The defense has already moved an appeal with the 9th US Circuit Court for Appeals. So, can gays and lesbians get married legally in California yet? No, because prop 8 is only sub-judice and not outlawed completely yet.

This was not known until very recently, but when a State judge ruled against the infamous proposition, this has come out for all to know. At the very top of the list were Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the co-founders of Google, who not only voted against the motion but provided donations to the movement opposing proposition 8.

Apple, another California-based company also did the same and also made their position on the subject clear on their official blog. Several tech giants also united under the ‘Silicon Valley Leaders Say NO on Proposition 8’ banner, which is good to know, despite the fact that the motion was passed with a 52-48 majority.

Corporate support will also be required in future because the prop 8 battle is far from over.

The legal counsel defending the proposition, has said that it also the democratic right of Americans to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman and it is a right that free people enjoy in making policy choices.

They also object to Judge Walker’s point of view that proposition 8 places heterosexual marriages on a higher pedestal than same sex marriages. The defense counsel added that no one who voted for the motion wanted to neither take away the rights of same sex couples nor demean their union in any manner.

All prop 8 wanted was to protect the centuries old institution of marriage for the ‘good of the society’.

The UCLA faculty is happy because the judge has not bought the argument that convention and procreation makes heterosexual marriages superior to gay unions in any way, because there should be no way to limit a marriage between two consenting individuals.

Another source from the UCLA has said that proposition 8 fell flat because there is no rationale behind denying lesbians and gay people the right to marriage. The education fraternity of California is also happy that the judge pointed out that a plebiscite was improper for passing this proposition, because same–sex couples were being singled out.

So, it seems that California is happy that the court has overruled prop 8.