From what I understand, a significant part of the fight (in general, not just California) has been about wanting to legally use the word "marriage", with all the social/religious connotations it's picked up over the years, rather than about just getting equal legal rights thru the law and then sorting out social perception thru social means.

This also comes at the expense of other non-traditional relationships, by making the argument about making a narrow change to what's called "marriage" rather than about handling the associated legal rights more flexibly.

So yes, bikeshedding.

You are conveniently ignoring the material grievances that they suffer by focusing on one aspect of the debate and pretending it's the whole thing. The fact is that gay people's life partners can not be granted power of attorney or numerous other marriage benefits is huge glaring inequity in our legal system.

Also, your original argument that a debate about Communism is also about human rights is applicable to any political debate, because of course politics is all about deciding things that affect people.

If you can't understand the difference between a class of people being denied common rights, and standard political debate about rules that ostensibly apply to everyone then I have no additional argument to try to help you see the light.

You are conveniently ignoring California law:

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.