How the Prop 8 Ruling Will Help Gay Marriage
I know a lot of people are saddened and angered by the California Supreme Court's 6-1 decision yesterday to uphold Prop 8. In my mind, it's not that different from Plessy v. Ferguson's tragic "separate but equal" ruling that confronted my great-grandfather and millions of other African-Americans looking for simple equality in the late 1890s.
But despite this backward decision, I am optimistic--and it's not because I'm writing for the Optimist's Daily Brief. I believe the ruling will hasten national acceptance of gay marriage. Let me explain.
Progressive Californians, embarrassed by falling behind states like Iowa and Maine, will no doubt challenge yesterday's decision at the ballot box in 2010. And next year no one--from Ellen Degeneres to the least-known supporter of gay marriage--will take victory for granted. I see an enormous grassroots effort emerging in California, the type of transformative campaign rarely seen in American politics. Think Obama 2008 or RFK 1968. I'm talking about emotions, about people reaching out to family members and neighbors because they feel so strongly, about a ballot measure that will dominate conversation in coffee shops and barber shops and gubernatorial debates--I predict that both the Republican and Democratic candidates will come out in support of the measure. Not everyone will agree, and not everyone who agrees will show up to vote. But just as in the Obama campaign, enough people will be inspired to turn the 48% loss in '08 into a 55-60% win in 2010.
And that win will have a huge impact beyond California. By that point, Cali will likely be joining a dozen other states in affirming marriage equality. And the 2010 movement against Prop 8 will garner national and global headlines, shifting the conventional wisdom in states still on the fence. Just as Iowa prompted Maine, Connecticut, and Maine to legalize same-sex marriage this spring, California's decision will push its neighbors in the Pacific Northwest to find the courage to join the Change Generation in the 21st century, as well as the remaining Northeastern states and a few Midwestern progressives like Minnesota and Wisconsin. By 2014, the movement will be so strong even states like Georgia and Florida will be forced to relent. The logic just won't hold up any longer.
A good friend of mine who covers these issues for a leading LGBTQ magazine doubts that change can happen so quickly. It took 21 years between the first thawing of anti-interracial marriage laws and the Supreme Court's historic intervention in 1967 outlawing interracial marriage bans across the country. But just as the famous Moore's law says that computing power doubles every two years, the speed of social change is increasing at an astounding clip thanks to technology. Twenty years ago, there's no way Barack Obama could have gone from newly elected Senator to President in just four years. Bill Clinton spent 16 years in politics before winning the nomination, Gore 24. Everything happens faster now--companies go public sooner, stories break earlier, stars become A-list quicker. And the same goes for political movements.
We no longer need to wait for change.
Yesterday was a bleak day in California, one among many right now for a state with 11% unemployment. But next year we'll see Cali make history by becoming the first state to legalize gay marriage at the ballot box. And that emotional victory will clear the way for an unbelievably rapid season of change--first at more ballot boxes, then in the cloaked chambers of the nation's highest court.
Cross-posted to The Stimulist
p.s. If you liked this, check out Jon Soltz's dismantling of the faulty logic behind "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Special treatment for married people discriminates against gays and single people.
Every once and a while I, as a single adult, do get a little irritated with marrieds.
But only every once and a while.
I don't personally spend my days and night concerned about how many tax credits etc that married people get.
There have been and always will be things that single adults do for society that marrieds can not do.
A dozen states by next year? That sounds to me less like optimism and more like fantasy. It won't surprise me if it's on the ballot and wins next year in CA, and maybe one or two more states by then, but that doesn't get the total to a dozen.
dsws,
Yes, I think there is a heck of a lot of baloney here and I do agree that there is utterly too much living on "Fantasy Island" and not in reality.
But I can't make people think.
Truth is that when the floodgates of gay marriage opened there was and equal response to that.
A response that gay activists didn't think would happen.
And the response continues......
I agree ... I live in California and I may be straight but I can also think straight. We are going to undo 8 in California in 2010 - and send a ringing message to those who would allow their narrow prejudices to limit the rights of others. The LDS Church will not win this one.
Call them what you will civil union / marriage should be open and legal for all couples regardless of sexual identity. If a particular church wants to deny a couple or not they can choose to do so. But religion is never a good argument to deny loving couples the right to be legally recognized as married. People who quote the Bible to deny this are not making a sound leagal argument.
Religion is not the argument... it's totally silly to even bring that into the conversation!
The issue is - one side believes that Men and Woman are different and the other says they are exactly the same which is even more silly...
So what side are you on?
No one is asserting the latter, Wake-up. You're just putting out that non-argument to distract from the real argument.
The assertion is that people should be able to marry a person that they love romantically. LGB persons can love a person of the same sex and, in the case of the first two, *only* of the same sex.
I don't know any gays who are saying men and women are exactly the same. You sound very confused but your photo is quite scary.
THE WAY TO THINK ABOUT POLITICS IS TO BE PRAGMATIC AND TO SEE THAT LIBERTARIAN OUTLOOK IS JUST OVER THE HORIZON; LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS IS A BASIC PROBLEM AND LEADS TO DEADLOCK; BEST ANSWER AHEAD (LIBERTARIAN) IS PROBABLY FOR THE GOVERNMENT NOT TO BE REGULATING SEX OR DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE EXCEPT TO PROTECT SPECIFIC NEEDS SUCH AS CHILDREN; SECOND BEST ANSWER IS PRAGMATIC THINKING THROUGH: "WHATEVER!" --STRAIGHTS SHOULD NOT OPPOSE GAYS GETTING THEIR WAY WHEN IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER TO EVERYBODY ELSE, MIGHT EVEN BENEFIT.
ON THE OTHER HAND GAYS ARE BEING HISTRIONIC AND IF THEY GET CARRIED AWAY WITH RHETORIC, IT MAY JUST SLOW THEM DOWN.
California is polarized because the state is actually north-south divided, even coast-inland divided. Has now gotten to do with state budget and lifestyle rights such as drugs and sex. The rest of the country will see situation as "canary in the mine," i.e. the canary dies before humans if too much bad air, so early warning system. Warns the rest of the country to not get politically and socially polarized, polluted, or overdeveloped.
Media has to analyze as simplistic liberal-conservative issues, unavoidable and unavoidably misleading, so there has to be muddling through. California is a great state and will have fun getting through what are really not serious problems, just getting along.
Hillary and Obama both said marriage shld be btwn a man and a woman so why the outrage?
And your point is? The pope says using birth control is a sin. Big deal!
Civil marriage is a civil right... PERIOD
Where does it say that in the Constitution... Marriage?
People don't agree on everything.
So. As BO said, WE are who we've been waiting for. Sometimes the people have to do the work and not rely on the POTUS to do it. Although it would be really heroic if he helped out.
We have to pressure our elected officials, educate and use the court systems. Really we (and I am a hetero) have all we need right in the power of the people to change these unjust laws.
Glad your speechless but think about the question. The bible says both are wrong and both are against the law in most places in this country. If my girlfriend consents to me violently strangling her to death during sex, is it a violation of my civil rights if the state says no you cant do this?
The Bible is irrelevant under a secular government. Only practicalities should relevant to such a government. The Bible says "thou shalt not kill", but there is also a practical reason for defending anti-murder laws. There is no practical reasons to oppose homosexuality.
Not only that, but most of the people referencing Leviticus seem to (A) not have actually read Leviticus and (B) ignore many other prohibitions therein and throughout the remainder of the Bible (apparently cherry-picking the parts that they agree with).
Finally, you're comparing apples and oranges. In the latter case, someone is harmed. Not only that, you're comparing a hypothetical situation which is not only unrelated but which is totally unrealistic; I bet you can't even point to one case where someone consented to be violently strangled to death during sex. (I don't think that the government should be able to prohibit peaceful suicide, however.)
That is my point! You cant discuss this issue without bringing religion into it. Marriage is a religious ceremony you cant look at this strictly in a civil rights lens. The reason many people are opposed to same sex marriage is bcz you wnt the state to force your views on our religious institutions. If the major religions in this country teach that homosexuality is wrong then why do you want the state to force your choice on those religions? Are LGBT rights more important then people who practice their faith? Carlos I suggest you go do some research on the civil rights movement and after doing so let us know if this same sex marriage movement is comparable to what blacks faced. Gays have access to jobs, education, and they can go to any restaurant they want. When you show me the gay only water faucets and toilets, the gays cant eat here restaurants, the separate but equal schools, and the open job discrimination, when you can show this type of discrimination then you can compare this to our struggle. Your comparing the struggle of a people who had nothing to a group of people with access to everything but a title.
Yes, you can look at this through a strictly civil rights lens.
Civil marriage is a civil right in each of the 50 states.
NONE, I repeat NONE of the 50 states require a religious ceremony to be legally married.
In fact, it is the CIVIL marriage license and marriage certificate that the states recognize as legal.
People can have a religious ceremony, but the civil papers are the ones that count.
In my own case, I had a religious marriage ceremony in another country that was not legally recognized in the US. I went to a justice of the peace in shorts and sandals, and in 10 minutes I had a legal marriage certificate. The civil laws in our country are the ones that count.
I have a suggestion - but it is probably far too simple to fly ....
Create TWO categories of marriage, each with its own ceremonies etc.
"Civil Marriage": Legally binding, setting up the legal rights of the partners. Required by law in all states and open in all states to anybody who wants to get legally married - i.e. same sex permitted.
"Spiritual Marriage": To take place in a church or other place of worship. This is a marriage before God and is subject to the beliefs of the church carrying out the marriage - i.e. no same sex if that church believes it to be against their religion. The ceremony has no legal implication; it is a contract with God, and is optional.
This would further separate church and state. People getting married under both systems could choose which ceremony they want the traditional trappings of a marriage to take place.
So....are you saying Atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry? Jews? Muslims? Hindus?
Seriously...think about what you're saying. Just because *your* religion doesn't allow gay marriage doesn't mean that other religions (Episcopalians, anyone?) don't allow gays to marry. Anyway, this law wouldn't force you to marry anyone, including gays--does your church *have* to marry anyone now? You can't get a Catholic marriage without being confirmed, so that means that Catholics don't marry Jews, Atheists, Muslims or Protestants. No one is suing them, are they?
No we want legal equality before the law. No one is arguing that religious officials should have to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
Further, this is comparable to what blacks faced. Blacks (and many non-blacks as well) were not allowed to marry a person of their choice prior to the abolition of miscegenation laws. Many gay persons are not protected from being fired on the basis of sexual orientation. They can't get married (which often comes with a whole slew of other rights like the right to not have your spouse deported, hospital visitation rights, and insurance coverage). Keep in mind that it was only six years ago that gay sex was illegal in many States (and sexual orientation is the definition of what a gay person is).
Traditionally, marriage was mostly about property. The woman went from being virtually her father's property to being virtually her husband's property. The heirs were legitimized. Poor people didn't bother with the whole thing, for the most part, no matter how devout they were.
Of course that's a selective reading of history. But the point is that so is the contrary position.
"just as in the Obama campaign, enough people will be inspired to turn the 48% loss in '08 into a 55-60% win in 2010."
As more fair-minded free-thinking Americans STAND UP for the oppressed ... their oppressors must STAND DOWN!
The love that dared not speak its name WILL be proudly proclaimed and privately, publically and politically protected in our "land of the free" that prides itself on EQUALITY. I only HOPE it happens SOONER, rather than later!!! It WOULD be a change we CAN believe in!!!
But not from the source that we would have expected that kind of change from, unfortunately.
"Plessy v. Ferguson" WOOOO!!! Not even close!
Gays have the same rights as straights 100% and choose (or would like to) carve out an additional right for themselves - I (Straight Male) can marry a woman and a Gay Man can marry a woman.
A Black man is the same as a White Man... but a Man is not the same as a Woman (e.g., if so, my Ex owes me a WHOLE lot of child support).
The court said this is not "Plessy v. Ferguson" and it was a great day for the law and California...
Hey, I'm gay, and I didn't choose to be gay any more than you chose to be black, left handed, or blue eyed. You can try to cover up and be something you aren't, but it's a facade. You are who you are. I can't change my attraction to my sex, and I'm certainly not attracted to women. It's not a choice.
As a fellow American who pays his fair share of taxes, pays his bills, and leads an honest life causing harm to no one, I deserve the right to marry the consenting adult whom I choose. My husband and I got married last October after 21 years together before it became illegal to do so here in California. We love each other as much as any other straight couple and we deserve the same benefits any other couple gets, like Social Security survivor's payments for instance, should one of us die, but we get zip!
Yes, but since at a Constitution level there are directly conflicting rights (the right of the religious to keep the government out of their customs and rituals, and Marriage would be ritual number one in the book of most religions, was recognized formally in the original Bill of Rights .. and ratified long before the equal protection clause), then it is best that this be worked out in the Democratic marketplace. In California, at least, I don't see that being a losing deal .. except to those who are not satisfied with winning unless resentment is created among the losers.
Democracy has a unique way of settling issues once and for all .. the non-Democratic world nurses resentments and even minor losses for centuries.
What in the bleep are you talking about? I have several girlfriends who pay child support to their male exes; if same-sex marriage is made law - and it must be for civil rights equality - then women who divorce from same-sex marriages with kids will be paying child support also. Meanwhile, gays DO NOT have the same rights as straights! They don't have the same rights re: marriage, adoption, health decisions, property rights - etc., etc, - and, they are NOT SEEN AS FULLY HUMAN OR THEY WOULD BE GRANTED ALL THOSE RIGHTS AND MORE.
Are you trying to impress the world with your macho picture? I'm NOT IMPRESSED. Why? Because the BRAIN IS THE BIGGEST SEXUAL ORGAN OF THE BODY, and therefore sexual preference is not the issue - self-respect plus intelligence is what counts, not macho anti-gay nonsense.
In California, PA and other states men are discriminated against everyday in the Family Courts. True, sometimes the Woman pays the man but that's rare. Example - If there are children and both parents want to keep the house, the woman wins every time(unless there's a substance or physical abuse record - even then, it's difficult).
I'd argue that Gays have more rights now when you consider discrimination law... those other things should be corrected (if not in place now), but not by changing the definition of marriage.
Why the name calling? There no anti-gay or anything here... relax!!
Hey fellow Golden Stater! Enjoy your battle party! Come on down to WeHo and I'll buy you a good-sport drink. Of course you realize that with same-sex marriage legal in Iowa and New England, as well as with its establishment in Europe, it's o n l y a m a t t e r o f t i m e.
Even Pat Buchanan admitted that much.
Some things are worth fighting for...
These states will also be challenging these back and either way, once the lawsuits really start happening, there will be a US constitutional amendment putting this aside once and for all... Also, Europe is a mess on several levels, nothing to emulate there...
Oh and thanks but I'll pass on the good-sport drink, there's no party here.
This is not just a gay marriage issue. This sets a precedent that the rights of a minority can be stripped by a ballot measure. This is a sad day for California. Whatever your opinion is about marriage, or gays, is irrelevant. But don't kid yourself -gays do not have the same rights as straights. In some states they can not adopt, they have to hide in the military, some states don't offer same sex benefits. I could go on and on. I am glad this is going to the USSC. This will be settled once and for all, and while this is risky, I believe that the supreme court has no choice but to overturn the law. This will clear the way to make marriage for gay couples legal in all 50 states.
Man... how to un-learn you from college!!!
Calif. ruled correctly, any man can marry any woman. What you want is additional rights and the people say no.
Military, why is sexual preference important? It's not... the professionals who run the military machine as bad to go there... that's good enough for you, yes? What's wrong with that?
Gays get to sue for tons of things that I can not... I'd argue they have more rights than me a straight guy.
There's no way this will pass in the USSC as the people don't want it. If you had evidence that being gay happens in the womb than maybe there would be an argument... the trouble is, they, you think of this like race and it is not. I have NO doubt that most believe they were born gay but there's no evidence.
Your argument is idiotic.
What really needs to happen is for the religious word "marriage" to be removed from law and simply refer to a marriage as a civil union --- exactly that which it really is. A "civil union" is a civil contract between adults that confers certain benefits. This civil contract would be available to any consenting adults; just as gender has no role in other legal contracts between individuals.
We all know the only reason gender in marriage is even an issue is because of discriminatory rubbish inscribed in mythical religious texts that irrational and short-sighted individuals actually take to be inspired by God himself. Through the centuries of forced religious worship and persecution of dissenters, societal rules were formed directly from the religious doctrine. Any attempt at reformation of societal norms based upon reason and an enlightened worldview were met with charges of heresy.
How this paradigm of deriving societal norms and laws from religious doctrine was perpetuated to the present day of America is incomprehensible.
Yet, it is even harder to understand why so many people feel entitled to force their personal religious doctrine onto everyone else living in this country. This is not a theocracy, this is America -- where EVERYONE is supposed to be treated equally, and where liberty and the right to pursue happiness is the foundation. How can that possibly be reconciled with with government mandating arbitrary gender restrictions that derived solely from religious doctrine???
I like your idea. Why is the government in the marriage business anyway? All unions should be civil unions in the eyes of the state. If you're gay and you're obsessed with being 'married', you should have to take your fight up with the church, not us other citizens who haven't done anything. I'm not even religious.
The LGBTQ community?
I'll bite...what is the Q for?
questioning
I'm gay, and the inclusion of "Q" is enough to make me want to scream.
Maybe "Quirky"?
We need to protect the Quirky people...
Go Pens!!
< Disappointed Ducks Fan>
The Q is for "queer". As a person included in the term LGBT, I don't really understand where the Q comes from myself.
I have worked for both straight and gay men. I would rather work for a gay man because he keeps his hands to himself. Not so the "straight" man. Most of them were married and still couldn't stop patting their secretary's butt. It gets tiredsome.
So you are saying that you not want to work for a gay woman?
Not so grabby. I've yet to meet a grabby lesbian in the workplace.
Prop 8 or no will not be the answer. I did'nt understand Prop 8. what one chooses to do in/ or out of their bedroom, shouldn't decide who lives together? I am tired of reading and hearing on the news that the troops who keep us safe, are being fired from the military because they say they are gay. WUWT? Hold your thought on prop 8, let's deal with keeping folks, our families, our friends and neighbors safe, and holding on to their jobs. THEY HAVE TO EAT AND HAVE SHELTER OVER THEIR HEADS, too. There was a time when folks lived together and after so long they were deemed Married. Why don't folks do that now? Your property is your own..give it or will to whom, you choose. Plus you have a right to give a conservitorship to whom you want to visit or not visit you in hospitals. Stop trying to pease the government and others by needing a grandstand. For what you believe in, Stop the drama and allowing others to control you. Enjoy your life. I love my man and my family. I know those folks must love their partners too. Now, being with the one we love, is what we as Americans should all be voting for. STOP THIS WAR ON MARRIAGE. Let folks marry who they want. Prop 8 wont help because there should be only the RIGHT to marry not who should or should not marry.
Here is my view:
1. If you can find someone you love who loves you back, then go for it.
2. Chances are that you and I aren't interested in the same person.
3. With whom you make love is your business alone.
4. Seems there is an issue with religion. I don’t see the big fuss. When weddings are conducted at “City Hall” or by a judge, there isn’t this uproar.
5. Please advise. Since churches are generally 501c3’s with no government funding, there isn’t the issue of “discrimination.” They can do as they please. Isn’t that what the Boy Scout decision was about several years ago?
6. Doesn’t Title VII already have a restriction of discriminating against protected classes?
7. Is this a matter of “state’s rights?” Should this fight go federal?
Oh, I am all in favor of gay marriage and the rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with it.
I agree with 1-5.
6. Marriage is a State issue, so, yes, it's a matter of State's rights. (The Defense of Marriage Act intrudes on State's rights by allowing the federal government to define marriage.)
7. Title VII doesn't cover sexual orientation. Arguably, its protection of "sex" could be used to protect it (since your sex comes into play when considering the sex of your partner), but that would be a bit of a stretch considering the intent. The US Constitution's equal protection clause should protect gay rights though (including marriage) and the Tenth Amendment should be used to invalidate DoMA as unconstitutional.
Carlos! I can't believe it! A TV news anchor who's not just a pretty face and a deep, sexy voice! Very smart essay.
Thanks man!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
