A Week Later in California, What's Next?

It’s been a week since the highest court in our nation's most populous state, California’s Supreme Court, handed down its persuasive ruling upholding the freedom to marry.  A week since fairness and equality won out and many are wondering: what do we do now? 

The answer: We defend the historic decision and the marriages that will commence in June.  We do this by speaking out to everyone we know, particularly in California, about why marriage matters, how exclusion is wrong, why we personally care, and how we can all contribute. 

We must refocus attention on the real question at hand, with efforts to undo this landmark victory already underway, what is the right outcome, and what will you do to achieve it.

Friends of equality must not hide behind the predictable chorus of lamentation about civil rights moving too fast, or attacks on judges for doing what they are supposed to do.  Squabbles over process should not distract from the real stakes for real people -- whether the freedom to marry and couples' actual marriages are preserved or taken away.

The Court Did Its Job
The court not only did the right thing, it did its job -- upholding the Constitution against laws that fell short of constitutional requirements.

The decision came from a court with a reputation for being fair and cautious, indeed conservative.  The New York Times recently reported that this court is the single most respected state court in America followed more often by its counterparts than any other.  Six of the seven justices are Republican appointees.  They ruled only after the legislature passed marriage bills not once, but twice, measures the governor vetoed saying that the judges should decide. 

California’s Chief Justice Ronald George, originally made a judge by Ronald Reagan, held that the state's constitution protects “the right of the individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one's choice.”  The court followed precedent, noting its own holding in Perez v. Sharp -- in which the California Supreme Court became the first court in the country to strike down race restrictions on marriage, in a decision sixty years ago this year.  Perez held that "the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." 

In the most powerful refutation of the right-wing's customary attack on judges for fulfilling their role in the American system, which keeps us free and equal, the Chief Justice noted that the Constitution itself is the voice of the people:

“[T]he provisions of the California Constitution itself constitute the ultimate expression of the people’s will, and ... the fundamental rights embodied within that Constitution for the protection of all persons represent restraints that the people themselves have imposed…”

When judges apply those restraints to laws that fall short or politicians who trespass on the rights and protections guaranteed to us all, they are serving the people, and America.

In her concurring opinion, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard added:

“[T]he constitutionality of the marriage laws’ exclusion of same-sex couples is an issue particularly appropriate for decision by this court, rather than a social or political issue inappropriate for judicial consideration….The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection.”

It is the court’s duty to protect the Constitution, and uphold equality for all. 

Defending Equality
Thanks to the court's integrity, the people of California and the country will witness how families are helped and no one is hurt when equality wins out, lessons we already learned in Massachusetts. 

In June, loving and committed couples regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation will be able to get government marriage licenses and secure for their commitment and family the respect, dignity, protections, and responsibilities that come with marriage.  It will be a time to rejoice and honor the love and families around us, and the equality that California now champions.

We must defend this just and appropriate decision and these marriages joyously celebrated under law.  Rights should not be put to a vote, but unfortunately they will in California this November if a proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment qualifies for the ballot. 

People seeking to volunteer, recruit others, donate the needed money (California is a big state), and honor the marriages and our nation's commitment to justice should go to www.equalityforall.com to learn more.  And then talk about why marriage matters, and ask others to get involved.

The court did its job.  Now all of us must do ours.

Follow Evan Wolfson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freedomtomarry

Comments

[MissMaryBrown]

The Bible clearly is rejected by many as authority on who can be married and who cannot be married. However, we must realize that the word "marriage" was created by the one who inspired the Bible. Marriage is a Judeo-Chri­stian-Musl­im (Children of Abraham) word. It was given meaning and cultural reality through God's word.

Some of us believe that God has the right, power, and authority to define what the word should include and not include. Does he want us to marry those we love? yes, But he limits the word marriage to be with only one person that we love. God's definition of marriage prohibits marrying all of the people we love, and his definition limits the gender of who we can marry. God even defines divorce a legal concept was introduced by Moses, while almost all other civilizations were living outside the legal reality of monogamous marriage, and legal divorce.

Perhaps states should no longer issue Marriage Licenses. Marriage is such Biblically defined institution, like Church, and Communion. Instead states should only issue Civil Contract Licenses, and could then decide whether it wants to permit whoever loves each other to get a Civil Contract. Then religious communities could retain their treatment of marriage as a biblical term, and issue certificates of marriage, as a promise and commitment between married people and God.

[AnotherTry]

Keep this issue in the forefront and put pressure on Obama to change his postion from state sanctioned discrimination to equality for all Americans!!

Equal rights now!

http://www.youtube.com/user/msbuch72

[HollywoodBill]

The Supreme Court of California was handed the hot potato issue of same sex marriage and did exactly what it was supposed to do, rule on its constitutionality. Arnold, along with all the other politicians, said that they would abide by the court's decision. And since it came in, most have been rather quiet about it.

Proposition 22 is going to be the problem. The author glosses over this like the people's will can be ignored. The electorate in CA spoke very clearly about the issue. 61.4% wanted marriage defined as between a man and a woman in 2000. According to a May 15, 2008 SurveyUSA poll, 52% would make that definition part of the CA Constitution, while 34% would not. The signatures are being tabulated right now. It will be on the ballot this November. If it passes it will nullify the Court ruling.

Californians do not like their will being overuled. Ask Gray Davis about those drivers licenses for illegals. Most of all, remember Rose Bird. She was the California Supreme Court Justice who never agreed with a death sentence that she would follow. She and three of her cronies were denied voter approval and, in effect, thrown out of office because of ignoring the will of the people.

While California was most definitely moving toward marriage equality, this move by the Court may not be welcome news. If the election were held today, the amendment banning same sex marriage would pass and nullify last week's events.

[AnotherTry]

That's why we need a leader who will fight for equality and lead us to defeat the old politics of division. If he stays the course, Obama will certainly be responsible for not only losing the White House, but of not doing enough to end this ridiculous fight. He needs to back his pretty words of change up with some action before it is too late.



http://www.youtube.com/user/msbuch72

[BonzaiBoy]

I am--perhaps naively--optimistic about the fate of the proposed constitutional amendment.

First, remember that Proposition 22 was voted on during a primary election--not a general election--in a year when Democrats had little reason to go to the polls (the choice was between former-VP Gore and Bill Bradley). Although Prop 22 passed with 61.4% of the votes, those in favor only constituted 19% of the voting-age population of California at the time. In other words, to argue that the "majority" of Californians voted against gay marriage is hugely misleading when in fact it constituted less than 12% of the voting population.

The proposed amendment for 2008 will (I have no doubt that it will make it onto the ballot) appear during a General Election when (1) Democrats are more likely to go the polls, (2) younger voters are more likely to go the polls if Obama is the nominee and (3) assumedly more than 19% of the voting population will turn out to vote. These are all strong, positive factors for a vote against the amendment.

Is it possible that the amendment will pass? Frighteningly and unfortunately, yes. Is it likely? Given the circumstances surrounding the upcoming general election, I'd say no. I sure hope I'm right.

[HollywoodBill]

The demographics of an election don't matter. It's the bottom line that counts. There, the results stand as 61.4% of the California electorate voted for the passage of Prop 22.

A new poll by the LATimes and released yesterday shows that the new proposed constitutional amendment which would overturn the court's ruling would pass 54% to 35%. The LATimes is trying to spin this as close but it is a 19 point loss. The age differential is there with 45 being the cut off point. The one plus that the pro marriage forces have going for them is that the number of people wanting the amendment isn't at 60%. http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html This data is consistent with the findings of the SurveyUSA poll from a few days earlier, 52% to 34% passage of the new constitutional amendment http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=eab6f754-dda5-4963-99e6-020c08eea25c

Propositions that have 60% approval rating at the onset have always been passed with one exception, the overturning of the three strikes law. It was about to pass and be overturned when Arnold stepped in and worked to keep it in place. Times have changed and Arnold doesn't have quite the power he did. It remains to be seen exactly what he will do.

At the moment, the passage of the new Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage looks more likely than its defeat. Of course, this is what elections are for.

[Burnsey]

I'm doing my part. I'm getting married on June 27th, the 9 1/2 year mark in my relationship. And I registered to vote in time to fight this at the ballot box. I am also emailing everyone I know to help in this fight.

OMG, I'm getting MARRIED!!!

[burnt]

It's my observation that it is much easier to deny the granting of rights, than it is to take rights away from groups.

Marry as soon as possible. Do not wait. The largest group of constituents should be produced.

Although most everyone who marries will be doing so to celebrate a personal expression of love and commitment, you need to understand that there is also a very large political component connected to the initial wave of marriages. It will be much more difficult to "undo" those marriages... and on several levels, exceedingly expensive to the State... especially if discrimination becomes actionable and punitive damages can be awarded.

Then, there is also a possibility of an injunction before the November elections.

Marry the soonest if at all possible. Recognize the political component and the possible consequences of not doing so.

[HollywoodBill]

There are 1.1 million signatures on petitions for putting the question of same sex marriage on the November ballot. 760, 000 are required. It will be on the ballot. The announcement is expected in June. The Supreme Court was aware of this situation.

Once the announcement of the impending proposition is made, the anti same sex marriage forces will be in court requesting a stay for implementing the Supreme Court ruling on the grounds that it would be too disruptive should the public vote to ban it. The court will most likely grant the stay and no same sex marriages will take place until after November. Ultimately, like it or not, the voters of California will have the final word on this subject.

[ProudLiberalDan]

I don't think the Supreme Court will do that at all.

Either way, this time next year, we will at least have Civil Unions in California, and boo hoo to social conservatives and anti-gay bigots who want all gay rights and relationship recognition repealed.