One simply can't overemphasize how momentous last week's California Supreme Court's decision to legalized marriage between same sex couples will be. As goes California, so goes the nation, and once this train leaves the station, there will be no turning back. Of course, as has happened since 2004 Massachusetts, it will take a remarkably short time before what seemed to some like such a radical change is in fact a non-issue - the sky will not fall, and we will get on with our lives - hopefully redirecting the energy used to oppose gay marriage on issues that actually matter.
Naturally, social conservatives are at the ramparts. Though inevitable, they are not going to go down without a fight. For gay people, this opposition is baffling: if you're against gay marriage, then don't marry someone of your sex . . . All the arguments suggesting that permitting gay marriage will somehow be damaging to society or straight marriages are spurious at best: how can allowing people to live honestly and build loving relationships be anything but positive? (Part of the reason is the very real fear of a one-time, near term result: the painfully large number of gay people who are currently married to an opposite sex partner may become evident.)
And an ugly fight it is going to be: the battle to overturn the court's ruling will be decided in November when Californian's will likely vote on an amendment to the State constitution to reverse the court's decision. This will throw into high-relief who our friend's really are. Most importantly will be to see how the Democrats handle the situation. Lest we forget: it was a Democrat that signed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', and the Defense of Marriage Act, two of the most damaging pieces of legislation in gay rights history. Now is the time for the party that considers itself to be so 'gay friendly' (and all too often takes the gay vote for granted) to redeem itself. Will the powers that be rally the troops to ensure the amendment doesn't pass? Will what is arguably the most powerful industry in the state, Hollywood, be as vocal, passionate and persuasive on the issue as they are on others (naturally, we can't count on the well known closeted actors)? There couldn't be a better opportunity to attract thousands of new, young voters to the party, and because young people are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, getting them to the polling station is key to victory.
Also critical to success is the Latino vote: Will Bill Richardson, Jennifer Lopez, Salma Hayek, Gloria Estefan, Marc Anthony and Christina Aguilera, et. al., rally for the cause and get their fellow Latinos to understand enhanced civil rights for gays and lesbians can only be a good thing for them as well?
And of course, it will be interesting to see which Republicans will come out for justice. Will the Log Cabin Republicans finally convince some of their brethren that the real conservative position is to support loving families and to encourage people to live honestly? If one of the founders of the modern conservative movement, Barry Goldwater, can see the light, other party stalwarts will eventually become supporters of gay rights. In fact, another positive outcomes of legalizing gay marriage will be the diminution of hypocrisy on both sides: Liberals who are clearly in favor of allowing their gay friend to marry (Hillary? Barack?), but kowtow to politics; and conservatives who toe their party line against their personal preferences (Cheney?) - will all finally be able to 'come out' and be honest.
This classic case of battling the tyranny of the majority will illuminate whether Americans are ready to do the right thing on this issue, as they have, if regrettably slowly, for women and racial minorities over time. In fact, it won't be long before people will wonder how in the world seemingly level-headed Americans could be against something that will be considered completely natural and fair. When future generations read that President Clinton, who on many levels seemed so progressive, was officially against gay marriage (and signed those heinous pieces of legislation), it will be similar to our disbelief that someone as forward thinking and brilliant as Thomas Jefferson could hold slaves. Indeed, how can those powerful, radical words in our constitution, "all men are created equal", which were further codified by the fourteenth amendment ('no state shall . . . deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws') be any clearer?