California Supreme Court Overturns Ban On Same-Sex Marriage
The march towards equality for gays took a step forward today with the ruling by the California Supreme Court. While this is a day for celebration, there may well be setbacks should an amendment banning same-sex marriage pass in November. The battle is far from over.
I realize I should be excited about the California Supreme Court’s decision to remove the ban on same-sex marriage…but the pragmatist in me simply won’t allow it. I’ll explain my thinking after the following excerpt on today’s ruling.
SAN FRANCISCO — – The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two measures that would have authorized same-sex marriage, today said he would abide by the court’s ruling.
“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” he said in a statement. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
But as early as November, voters could be asked to render their opinion on an amendment that would again attempt to ban same-sex marriage.
A coalition of religious and conservative activists has submitted 1.1 million signatures to qualify the amendment, which would say that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Andrew Pugno, an attorney for the initiative’s sponsors, said the Supreme Court decision is a boost for the measure because opponents have been saying there is no real threat that same sex marriages will happen.
“This decision draws a line in the sand and makes it clear that this is the last chance for voters to have a say,” Pugno said. “This is proof positive for voters that the courts are out of control and the voters have to step up.”
First, the timing of this ruling isn’t advantageous. As we approach a critical election in which the Democrats are poised to take the presidency as well as additional seats in the house and the senate, giving the rabid right wing an issue to rally around is apt to boost the GOP’s fundraising, motivate evangelicals to get out and vote, allow John McCain to exploit the differences between the GOP and the Democratic Party with regards to same-sex issues (including forcing the Democratic nominee to clarify his or her position on the ruling and same-sex marriage), and give supporters of an amendment to add a ban on same-sex marriage to the California constitution ample ammunition to fund and promote their ballot measure (every right wing organization is going to pour money into this ballot initiative).
Secondly, I believe that the mood of voters had changed since the 2004 election. That change included less of an emphasis on values driven politics and more of a focus on issues that endear voters to the Democratic Party. Today’s ruling may return us to the days of God, guns, and gays…with a particular emphasis on gays. Should that happen, it would allow the detractors of the Democratic party to reemphasize the fact that they are generally in favor of extending more rights to gays, accepting of court rulings that expand rights even if the voters wouldn’t vote to approve them, and in favor of appointing more judges with similar views.
Let’s look at the chronology to better understand the shift that took place since 2004 and the likelihood that this ruling could facilitate a step backwards in terms of renewed voter resistance. Following on the heels of Massachusetts allowing gay marriage as a result of a 2003 court ruling, in February of 2004, San Francisco and other municipalities began issuing marriage licenses to gays. While all of these actions felt empowering and led to numerous celebratory moments, it was short lived (except in Massachusetts) and likely assisted in the passage of amendments to ban same-sex marriage in eleven states.
Following the 2004 election, Iraq, the economy, and other issues pushed the values agenda to the back burner as voters focused on other concerns. The outcome of the 2006 election supports that contention. As we’ve approached the 2008 election, the general perception has been that God, guns, and gays had fallen into disfavor with voters (or at least been overtaken by other priorities) and would not play a significant part in this election cycle.
If one believes that history repeats itself…and that the U.S. has a history of vacillating between left and right (in a manner reminiscent of a pendulum) when it comes to issue of morality…this ruling could create the momentum needed to effect a shift to the right…or at the very least a halt to the current swing leftward. While these back and forth swings seem inevitable, the timing of this ruling may be the accelerant that sets in motion the unfavorable shifts noted above…sooner than they would have otherwise occurred. That would be a classic example of an unintended consequence…but an unwelcome and unfortunate one no less.
Look, I also believe that the affording of rights can’t always be scheduled for maximum advantage…nor should they be delayed accordingly. History will undoubtedly view this ruling as one of the important steps in the chronology of granting gays equal status. Nonetheless, the journey between now and then may well include events that (similar to this ruling), at the time they occur, seem to be a step forward but that ultimately precipitate a temporary step backwards. As such, the soldiers need to be prepared for the times when retreat and retrenchment are the order of the day.
Today is a time for celebrating…but tomorrow may be another story. It is imperative that we remain vigilantly mindful of the impact our actions will have on the ever shifting political terrain. This means that it is essential for us to be aware of the positions each of the combatants holds on the battlefield. In the end, regardless of the victories and defeats, the march towards equality must never cease. Today we’ve won a battle…tomorrow the war proceeds.
dan, no offense, but i get tired of the use of the word ‘war’ bein used casually. war involves ppl gettin dead. i’m pretty sure richard would understand. unless you’re willing to kill ppl for what you want, don’t use the word war. and as an aside, i hope the ruling stands.i’m a straight guy, myself, but have nothing against gays, lesbians, or even transexuals, for that matter. i’ve had one nut cut off, and if they want to go thru that much pain, i dunno what to say. can’t be easy.
sameoldjeff,
None taken. I appreciate your perspective and I understand the sentiment.
I believe I’ve used the term metaphorically when one looks at it in context. Clearly I’m not advocating…nor am I in favor of…killing anyone. The definition of the word war does include “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.”
Regardless, I respect the sensitivity and will reconsider my use of the term in the future.
thx. i am not a pacifist, i will kill, if absolutely necessary. like if you break into my house. if you’ve ever met anyone who has killed before, and liked it, they’re sick. need massive doses of haldol or thorazine, lol.
I’m sorry I don’t agree with your assessment. The right time to ensure that all Americans are treated as equals is always right now. If the right wingers want to cling to their narrow definitions of what is acceptable that is their business. Our job on the other side will be disproving their BS in the process.
No straight man has ever suddenly looked at another man’s hairy butt and decided he had to get himself some of that because some other person he never even met married somebody of the same sex. That’s nonsense.
The lies about the institution of marriage are also baloney. If we wanted to ‘preserve’ the institution of marriage then perhaps we should be banning Baptists from getting married, seeing as how they have the highest divorce rate of any group in the country. If two consenting adults want to get their relationship officially recognized by the state and the nation it is not the state’s place, under the US Constitution to tell them that they can’t because their type of relationship isn’t as valuable as another type. Marriage as recognized by the government can never be anything more than a civil agreement between two people. Assigning some holy value to the institution is the province of religion and the government should not be concerning themselves with such things.
The slippery slope arguments about “Next we’ll have people marrying 12 year olds and trees and dogs” is equally ridiculous. Even if someone wanted to marry a tree, who is that harming exactly? We’ve seen that underage sexual activity, married or not, is harmful to a the child and a dog or a tree cannot consent to be married. No gay adult has ever been harmed by being married to another gay adult if anything it makes them stronger, better people to have a support system there for them.
Homosexuality doesn’t promote sexual deviancy. I’ve known many gays and yes SOME of them are promiscuous just like some heterosexuals are promiscuous but I also know gays who have lived with and loved the same partner for twenty years. That level of promiscuity isn’t a function of being heterosexual or homosexual it is a function of being human.
Nor does homosexuality somehow spell the doom of the human race. I heard someone use the argument that homosexual unions are unnatural because they do not produce children. That’s ridiculous from two perspectives. First that a human created religious ceremony is somehow natural as though it grows on a tree and second that in order for said religious ceremony to be valid it must produce children. Are we to also ban women who cannot conceive children because of fertility problems from marrying? What about men who have low sperm counts? There are plenty of children out there -right now- who need to be adopted and there are ways including insemination and surrogates if reproduction becomes a desire. Even if there were no way for homosexual couples to reproduce, homosexuals represent a relatively small portion of the overall human populace. Even if they represented 20% of the overall population there are still more than enough heterosexuals around to keep the species going.
The arguments from a religious perspective are also bogus. Yes, the Bible and some other religions condemn homosexuality. So what? You do not live in Saudi Arabia or another theocratic country and the First Amendment means that your church cannot be forced to recognize a marriage of any type that it doesn’t want (even heterosexual ones) to or to perform a ceremony it doesn’t want to. But It is not the place of the government to elevate one religious practice over another nor intermingle religious practices in legislation or justice. It is the place of the government to make sure that it lives up to the principals that were defined to found it and one of those is that ALL Americans get equal rights and protection under the law.
It is our job to make sure that these arguments get a proper thrashing and that their flaws are pointed out for everyone to see. Because we are all Americans and we all deserve to be treated as equals. When any one of us is put in chains, literally or figuratively, we all suffer because of it. Fifty years ago it was black Americans. Now it is GBLT Americans. How long will it be before the populace gets around to some group they wish to marginalize and discriminate against that YOU are a member of?
Will this issue somehow ‘cost us points’ in the election in November? Perhaps. But I doubt it. There are some that are fooled by McSame, true. But I doubt that those people would be voting for the Democratic nominee anyway. The citizens in this country have been abused by right wing politics for far too long, they realize it now and are energized by a chance to make a change for the better. I don’t think that desire for positive change is going to be derailed by a bunch of people who claim to be Americans and yet wish to create second class citizens that they can feel superior to even if they are using religion as a means to push their agenda.
Sheesh…
damn I’m long winded.
E in MD,
I don’t believe I stated that we should forego demanding rights…right now. In fact, I specifically stated:
At the same time, there is no reason to bury our heads in the sand with regards to the political implications. I think awareness is always advantageous. Yes, the California ruling is an important step…one that has taken far too long to achieve…but it will unfold in the world in which we live and it is essential that we understand how it will be viewed so that we can take appropriate steps to counteract the certain actions of those opposed to same-sex marriage…as well as steel ourselves for possible setbacks or disappointments.
My words are a warning; not a prediction. Our task is to heed the warning signs and head off any of the potentially negative outcomes. I realize that can be a buzz kill but I find no joy in fooling myself. Excitement can obstruct our view of reality but it can’t change it. We should celebrate this ruling…and immediately prepare to protect it from being rejected in November.
Regards,
Daniel
P.S. The final sentence of your second to last paragraph indicates you may not be aware of the fact that I am a member of the LGBT community. I assure you I am.
sheesh, dunno where to start. i had a cousin who was pregnant at 12. had 5 kids by the time she was 18. didn’t turn out real well. tellin a horny teenager to just abstain doesn’t work real well. tellin’em abt the pill, and condoms might do some good. and i do believe that a person can’t change their sexuality. no matter how much tasha yells at me, another guy just isn’t gonna do it, lol. no offense.