Prop 8 of California

California's recent proposal 8 has been stirring up some controversy, I think a strictly legal view of it reveals some interesting outcomes. Those who are arguing that homosexuals ought to have the right to marry say the following:

"Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban [proposal 8] may not be applied retroactively."

They are, in this respect, correct. However, they are not saying what they think they are saying. They are acknowledging the self-evident truth that proposal 8 cannot be applied... period. It is not a matter of retroactive justice, or putting someone in jail for a crime committed while the act was legal; instead, proposition 8 outlines what is recognized as marriage. Recognition is not something that can be applied retroactively or otherwise. If the state no longer recognizes that two men can be married, then the legal union they had performed is null and void in the eyes of the state. There really isn't much more to this part of the matter

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081220/D9566TM87.html

One further thing I would note, the claim is that homosexuals are being denied the "right" to marry, I really have been trying hard, but I cannot find a right for anyone, be they gay or straight, to marry. I have yet to understand how anyone can say that heterosexuals have the "right" to marry. Just because each state government legally recognizes the validity of a heterosexual union does not mean heterosexuals have a right to marry. This is a violation of the concept "right".

If there is a good reason to codify a recognition of homosexual unions, I have yet to hear it.