It was a day of personal schizophrenia for me.
I woke up on the west coast with news of President Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor as the next associate justice of the U.S. Supreme court. My heart swelled with such pride. Over the years, I've had occasion to meet Judge Sotomayor and watched her ascent in judicial circles with such pride.
Perhaps my veneration and personal belief in Judge Sotomayor come from the fact that she and I have a similar "pedigree" of sorts. We're both of Puerto Rican descent, from public housing projects in the Bronx. We both went to Princeton, she went to Yale Law School. I was only wait-listed at Yale, and opted to go to Stanford Law School instead.
Over the years, I watched from afar as she broke one glass ceiling after another. And today felt like the culmination of not just one remarkable woman's career, but of the sacrifices of generations of immigrant parents who struggled to give their kids a chance at achieving the pinnacle of the American dream. "Que dios me la bendiga" — may god bless her — my grandmother would have said today on Judge Sotomayor's behalf. And grandma was always right.
Then three hours later, my mood worsened. As one glass ceiling was being shattered and as America was overcoming centuries of discrimination against women and Latinos, one other ceiling was being reinforced with concrete and steel over the heads of gay and lesbian couples in California.
As proud as I was to be a lawyer in the morning, I was disgusted at my profession this afternoon. How could any judge — or any lawyer— not understand what Prop. 8 was really about? What is the role of the judiciary if it is not to protect the minority from the whims of the majority? I sat in the courtroom that day when Prop. 8 was argued, as I watched judges and lawyers struggle in legal speak as they tried to rationalize a decision to take away people’s rights. Was Proposition 8 an amendment or a revision to the state constitution? The first case that granted us full civil rights was a case of first impression. This second case that took away our new-found rights wasn't a case of first impression. The people — the homophobic majority — has spoken. I guess I just have to lump my civil rights. The majority speaks.
In the afternoon, I went back to the clips of Judge Sotomayor talking of her personal triumph, and hearing President Obama speak of the importance of having a Supreme Court justice speak with empathy for the powerless. While the ACLU does not officially endorse or oppose U.S. Supreme Court candidates, I have never been personally prouder of any appointment.
After watching the evening clips, I asked my media office to check and see if President Obama said anything about Prop. 8 or if a written White House statement was issued to the thousands of lesbians and gays in California who were relegated to second class citizens. Hope springs eternal.
The answer from my press office:
"Obama has not said anything about Prop 8 today. When asked for reaction at the White House press briefing today at 3:48 p.m., Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said:
'The issues involved are ones that, ah, you know where the president stands.'"
"Brilla con su ausencia," my grandmother would say when one of her 12 grandkids didn't show up for her birthday. "He shines in his absence."
President Obama's empathy for lesbian and gay Californians shines in its absence today — my grandma would tell him.
May Judge Sotomayor's deep empathy rub off on all Americans.
Um, while that sounds good, I don’t know that that is the role of the judiciary in this country. A jury is called upon to see justice done, but a judge is called upon to see the law fairly applied.
If the law is not fair, it is up to the legislature–or in the case of California–the people themselves to address the issue.
If a law is inconsistent with other laws, including that supreme law of any district: the constitution, then a judge may overturn the lesser law.
But I think your premise here is not valid, and it is a concern to me and my support of the ACLU that you should hold it.
In the case of california, the legal ruling turned upon a technicality of local constitutional law, and ruled, fairly, that the people’s will should be enforced. They also ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples to retain the full rights of marriage, even if they are denied the name.
I’m not saying I like it; I hope the people of California change their minds.
But I think the legal process worked quite well in this instance, and I hope the ACLU understands that in our democracy, ‘good’ results are not just the desired outcome, but the fair application of justice and the impartial functioning of our legal system.
A mature woman showed up alone, remarkable in her normality. Her sign was hastily crafted but powerful: "I am oppressed!" I shall never forget her; what a beauty!
Some yahoos in a truck flipped a U-turn and smoked their tires less than a meter from where I was; another threw water on me--not just on the group, but on me. I knew I stood out in my lady-like attire, so I stood proudly in front. It ruined my sign and shocked some of the freshman, but I just wiped off my sunglasses and continued to stand until dark with the rainbow colors of my signs dripping like tears onto the boulevard.
As I left, I blasted Melissa Etheridge's protest song: "Giant" for them. They erupted into raucous cheers as the “lady†showed them that she was queerer and tougher than she looked in a pink sweater.
My mom asked me what had kept me out so late. After my answer, the startling confusion on her face was priceless. "Protesting what?" she asked.
"Prop 8," I said.
"Oh, right--I heard that today," she replied.
I told her to cancel the plans we made for the weekend and that I was going to Fresno. http://www.meetinthemiddle4equality.com/
Hope to see you there!
I found a protest nearby my work. My sign read: Gay Rights = Human Rights. A journalist began to focus on me as I made it: in business attire, and, at a whopping 32, I was the oldest in the crowd. When I quietly displayed my sign first, she asked to interview me. I spoke freely about the personal impact this decision had on me: a single lesbian trying to start over.
We marched to the nearest intersection; there were 30 of us at most. 2 squad cars showed up for 15 minutes with no apparent reason for their presence: we stood peacefully on the corner. Many honked in support; less gave us the finger or shouted the usual slurs and the tried cry of "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"
…Continued.
The CA Supreme Cort stated that pursuant to California law, a civil union has the legal rights & responsibilities or marriage.
I WANT TO BE FREE TO MARRY THE PERSON I LOVE-NOT THE ONE YOU THINK I SHOULD!!!!!
Gay people want a new right, not the same rights as straight people. Namely to marry the same sex.
Gays have the very same rights to marry as straights -- that is the opposite sex -- gays want a new right to marry the same sex --- straights DO NOT have this right!
Try again.
Big difference
As to the California Supreme Court, there was a time when it would have stood firm -- such as when they overturned the ban on interracial marriage (1948) or struck down an initiative that amended the constitution to repeal affirmative housing (1966), Now, on one hand, the Court stated that Prop 8 only eliminates the word "marriage," in all other respects the state still has an obligation to ensure equality between same-sex unions and traditional married couples. But they preserved existing marriages, in part, because marriage affected substantial rights. You can't have it both ways, and separate cannot be equal. Eventually, the opinion will go the way of Plessy. But for now the justices still seem to have the fate of the Bird court in the back of their minds.