John Culhane parses the prop 8 ruling:

The majority went on for almost 140 pages. In brief, their points which I’ll next explore in somewhat greater depth are these: (1) The California Constitution is easy to amend, and that’s not something we can change: (2) The deprivation of rights isn’t that big a deal, really, because all that’s been removed by Prop 8 is the word “marriage” rather than the rights that go with it; (3) Based on precedent and constitutional history, Prop 8 is a permissible amendment to the state’s constitution not a more substantial revision, which would require prior submission to the legislatures (and a 2/3 approval) before going to the voters; (4) There’s no separation of powers problem here: Everyone’s doing their constitutional job; and (5) The Attorney General’s “novel” argument that certain rights are “inalienable” and therefore immune from the vagaries of majority rule, has no traction.

It sounds like a reasonable judgment to me. The job of supporters of equality is now to make the case for real substantive equality - in name as well as form. And to take that argument to the people of California.


We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.