PROPOSITION 8: SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED?

The anti gay-marriage Proposition 8 of California received the seal of approval of the states' Supreme Court on Tuesday May 26, 2009! In a 6-1 decision, the highest court of the state upheld voters decision banning same sex marriage in California. This decision has now finally sealed, albeit, the hope of many gay enthusiasts and activists; who were hopeful prior, that the "wrong" wrought by the people of California in the last election, outlawing their right to marry whosoever they chose, could be righted by the state's highest temple of justice? But nope; they were wrong as their hopes were once again dashed by the court!

This perceived right to marry who they desire, which the voters of California knocked into comatose during the last election, had its life support pulled-off by the supreme court of the state! The supreme court was nearly anonymous in the 6-1 vote upholding Proposition 8, the anti gay-marriage ballot measure that passed during the last November 2008 election, which has now by the supreme court's decision, become the law of the state as it affects marital relationship and who one can legally marry? The lone dissenter Justice Carlos J. Moreno noted, "The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized [in last year's opinion], it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority." What is now left for these activists and parties of interest is to start all over again, to try to have the measure allowing them to marry each other, sail through during the next election in 2010 or 2012?

It was hallelujah for anti gay-marriage proponents who were relieved that the court ruled in favor of their sponsored Proposition 8? Icheoku says, regrettably many of these hypocritical people are underground gay men and women, some of whom pick up dates in airport bathrooms and includes a one time head-pastor? Had the supreme court invalidate Prop 8, it would have put the court in direct defiance of the wishes of people of California. However the same court validated the already existing eighteen thousand same sex marriage, leading to procastinators, crying had I known?

Icheoku asks, what are the ramifications of this shut down of the hopes and aspirations of millions of gay Americans resident in California, to marry a spouse of their choice, irrespective of the sex or gender; and in view of the gay-marriage wildfire currently spreading through America from the hinterlands of Iowa to Northeast's New Hampshire etc? Our position is that such peoples activism can only hibernate for sometime before it rears its head again and with determination, shall one day succeed. The only snag here is that unlike other issues where California provides necessary leadership, gay-marriage has and will make California eventually, a mere follower! By this ruling, gay-marriage supporters will have to work hard to persuade Californians who voted to ban such marriages last fall to change their minds, once again, during the next election season. They have been told by the supreme court that they cannot get it through the back door but must be courageous enough to take their battle to the people and convince them on why they should change their minds. What a daunting task this shall be as several times has this proposition made the ballot and severally were they told NO, that they cannot marry as marriage is between a man and a woman? Biologically and religiously, may be? But the 700,000-member political action movement, Courage Campaign, spearheading the legalisation of gay marriage in California is unyielding and will put the issue back before voters as soon as 2010! According to their statement, "The initiative process in California is flawed, the very idea that a majority can vote to take rights away from a minority is flawed. It really is quite outrageous." Icheoku asks, do this group of people ever had any right to marry themselves that was taken away by proposition 8 and now confirmed by the supreme court?

One of the surprises of this ruling is the equivocation of one of the judges who said that there is nothing so special about gay-marriage rights that make them exempt from the state's famously disruptive and pliable constitutional-amendment process and aren't going to get any help from the state's. This position is contrary to his previous position last May 2008 when he said that any discrimination against gays is no less outrageous - and illegal - than discrimination based on race or religion. Also it would appear that by the judges allowing the already married eighteen thousand couples to stay married, that they are permitting an illegality since marriage is now between two opposite sexes only? Further, were any such married spouse to die, does it mean that the surviving spouse will be foreclosed from re-marrying? Icheoku says, both rulings are more confusing than they are clarifying; eliciting the question, did facts formerly not available suddenly become available for these six judges, to persuade them to shift their grounds and in this manner? Will an "illegality" of some now be tolerated while at the same token, others are prevented from engaging in the same act? Justice must be a one cap fits all and not so selective that it sucks? Anyway, justice it would appear in this matter is somewhat subjective! So until changed, it is now a settled law of the state of California that a man can only marry a woman and vice versa except if that person falls among the elite exclusive 18000 already married homosexual couples? So anyone who has any objection to what the supreme court has now ratified and decreed, can take a hike to Iowa or New Hampshire or Vermont and live as they please including marrying anyone they fall in love with?

Icheoku says, love has no gender bias and should not be predicated on genitalia? Also love-making does not dictate that a phallus must plug a particular type of hole as any orifice should suffice? It should be a choice which must be freely made by both consenting adults? Icheoku knows of a woman who has been married for seven times and could not find love with a man until she finally switched and is now happily shacking together with her fellow woman? Should we blame biological makeup that same sex understands each others' needs better; including emotional topsy turvy of life? But are humanity really meant to marry or was it a society's devised institution to hamstring and shackle down roving men? Was it a trap designed by women to secure their old age wrinkled period in life when no man would be readily looking at their direction? Or was it by men who look into the future and see a ballooned pot-belly that will not be readily attractive to women and decided to secure their future companionship and sex now through marriage?

Whatever be the case, love should freely roam and not constrained or confined or restricted as it comes from the deep of the heart; and can only be felt! Whether it is by men choosing to love their fellow men or women falling head over heal in love with their own specimen; should it really matter who we chose to bestow the honor of our love? Love is the meeting of two hearts and no one ever said it is the meeting of two genitalia of opposite sex? What say you depends on your level of exposure and acceptability that certain things are just different. As for Icheoku, we take the discuss further by arguing against any form of marriage whatsoever. Why marry at all; and if you must, then whatever companion you chose should be your private prerogative and not subject to an extended debate or a vote or a ruling. Marriage is and should be a private affair for the consenting adults and state or anyone for that matter, should simply butt out; after-all it is the two parties that will be locked up in the relationship and who will possibly kill themselves eventually due to rabid disagreements? Icheoku therefore says, Californians, please butt out and let everybody marry whoever or whatever they chose to marry; including their dogs, cats, snakes, reptiles or any other pets of their hearts delight! What is marriage after-all, but a union; and for us, any union is good enough, period!

An addendum however, pictured left leading the early movement for gay rights and equality in America, seating on top of a moving vehicle forefront is Harvey Milk! He was the man who lit the fire that has now snowballed into an inferno in America's gay right movement. He was the first elected openly gay America. He was from New York but lived in the city of San Francisco California where he was elected supervisor and was later assassinated by a religious right winger, Mr White! What would Harvey say about this Proposition 8 and the subsequent supreme court's thumbs up?