You are conveniently ignoring California law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership

You are conveniently ignoring California law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califor... See under "Scope". By 2008 as amended, California afforded domestic partnerships the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law. Federal law was of course different due to DOMA, which was overturned in 2013. Prop 8 did not remove any legal privileges available under CA Domestic Partner law. It did not revoke any marriage licenses, either. As for denying "common rights", you are begging the question. What common public good (not "right") is secured by marriage, defined based on that public good, that the state should regulate it in the first place? Traditionally (in the US), legally regulated marriage had to do with family law, children, rearing as well as getting of children, forming legally recognized kinship based on procreation and adoption. Along the way, baggage including visitation rights at hospitals and jails was thrown on board, but such regulations are not essential. If people can't agree on the common good of marriage, then marriage should not be legally regulated at all. It's stupefyingly clear from this case that people do not even use the same definitions for words including "marriage" and "rights". That this is true does not make anyone on any particular side of the multi-sided debate an outlaw for dissenting from whatever might be the dominant position, in 2008 or now. Anyway, ignore the lack of consensus on a common good. You didn't even bother to be accurate about relevant California law. You just made up stuff about "material grievances" and "common rights" to try to dodge debate and cast others as beyond the pale.