I know this isn't really hacker news, but as a gay hacker, I beg you not to flag this story :-)
I guess it's possible that there are people who only read HN, and don't have any other news source whatsoever, and that those people would otherwise miss out on this bit of news—but then, I think those people have chosen to filter out other news sources for a reason :)
Edit: I'm just asking for a justification here—if it explicitly isn't Hacker News, what made you want to post it?
Restricting the rights of anyone in our country affects all of us who live here.
Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Prop 8 is just another way for the two sides of the culture war to beat each other over the head.
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.
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 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."
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.
Declaring it marriage does fill the current gap of equal rights.
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." ?
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.
But seriously, there is no reason, other than it being a really nice piece of news that, as a member of a community, I would like to share with the rest of that community.
(And to clarify: I didn't post it, I just voted it up :-) )
(And I realize—I was addressing the original poster in the context of your comment. :)
If you're using the stats I think you are, you probably mean "directly affected by" the news. As a California resident, I am very interested in this story but I don't need to see it at the top of HN.
I can't imagine why, though... http://cl.ly/1sDc