All of us who believe in America's promise of equal protection under the law celebrated yesterday's federal court ruling striking down California's infamous Proposition 8, which in November 2008 stripped away the freedom to marry from same-sex couples in California (except for the 18,000 couples who had married in the previous months). U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, a Republican appointee to the federal bench, struck a blow to a cruel and unfair constitutional amendment that should have never become law. The judge rightly noted that the Constitution protects all Americans against arbitrary denial of precious freedoms - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and, here, the freedom to marry - particularly when, as he found, the government can show no good reason for that selective, unequal treatment.
The authoritative ruling, grounded in law and evidence, will certainly be appealed, and there will be many twists in the road ahead. The case will now go to the Ninth Circuit federal appellate court, and a decision there may take years. We don't know whether or when the case will get to the Supreme Court, or who the justices will be should it get there. These things we cannot control.
What we can control is whether we seize this historic moment and create the climate that will empower and embolden decision-makers to do the right thing, whether those decision-makers turn out to be appellate judges or the California electorate that may well vote on a ballot-measure undoing Prop 8. Simply put, to maximize the chances both of winning on appeal and winning at the ballot-box, we now must make as compelling a case for the freedom to marry in the court of public opinion as in the court of law.
What we saw throughout the Prop 8 trial is that there is no good reason to exclude loving and committed same-sex couples from marriage. Recognizing the paucity of their own case, the Prop 8 defenders of anti-gay discrimination went as far as to assert during closing arguments that they "don't have to have evidence" -- a shocking assertion in any case, especially one that's weighing direct injury to thousands of couples and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Equally shocking, and revealing, was the Prop 8 crowd's own admission in pretrial proceedings that they had no explanation for why the freedom to marry is undesirable. When Judge Walker asked their lead lawyer Charles Cooper, "What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?" Cooper, replied, "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know ... I don't know." Cooper is a star lawyer for the right-wing, and has had a long time to think of an answer to that question; he was, after all, the hired-gun appellate attorney brought in to try to overturn the historic first freedom to marry trial we won in Hawaii in the 1990's The reason a smart lawyer like Cooper still, after all this time, couldn't provide a reason to justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is that there isn't one.
Now those of us who support the freedom to marry must elevate the truth we saw in this trial: that families are helped, and no one is hurt, when same-sex couples share in marriage. We must take that truth to kitchen tables, legislative corridors, Facebook, and Twitter, and personally make the case for marriage.
The freedom to marry has real momentum, but political and legal change will not waft in on inevitability. Courts do not operate in a vacuum, and litigation is but one piece of the work that will secure marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. Freedom to Marry's Roadmap to Victory lays out the strategy to win marriage nationwide. To set the stage for a national resolution, we must win more states, build majority support for marriage, and end federal marriage discrimination. To get our elected officials, and our appellate judges, to fix the law and end exclusion, we have to create the climate that encourages and enables them to do their job, like it or not. Drawing on the struggle against race discrimination in marriage as a historical measure, we are still far short of the critical mass of 34 states that had ended race-based discrimination when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, though doing better in building the critical mass of public opinion in support, as we move toward Freedom to Marry's "majority for marriage." While there is no mathematical formula for what constitutes the needed critical mass of states and critical mass of public opinion needed for national resolution, to maximize our chances of prevailing as we advance, we must continue to make gains on both fronts.
Already, Freedom to Marry and our partners and supporters across the country are mobilizing around this ruling, which followed compelling federal rulings striking down the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" a few weeks ago. The grassroots enthusiasm for marriage equality was evident last night, online, and in cities in California and across the nation where supporters gathered to celebrate Judge Walker's potent findings. In California, groups on the ground, such as Equality California, aren't wasting a moment. They are working to continue educating the public and building support for marriage in the state in anticipation of the ballot-measure that may be needed to repeal Proposition 8 as soon as 2012. Similar work is underway in states from New Jersey to Oregon. Nationally, Freedom to Marry is upping its game to bring the whole campaign together - litigation, legislation, public education, and direct engagement; the work to win requires us to redouble our efforts on all these fronts of the Roadmap to Victory.
The opposition's house of cards has collapsed, revealing the emptiness of the arguments against the freedom to marry and treating gay people as we all want to be treated: with fairness, equality under the law, security, and respect. Now we can make the case for the freedom to marry to those Californians, and those Americans, willing to rise above discomfort and the fear stoked by the backers of discriminatory measures such as Prop 8. Judge Walker has done his part, and now it's up to all of us. Through personal engagement and conversations, and a sustained campaign, together we will restore marriage in California and secure the freedom to marry nationwide.
Follow Evan Wolfson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freedomtomarry
Rita Nakashima Brock, Ph. D.: Prop 8, Judge Walker and the Biblical View of Marriage Equality
Rabbi Michael Lerner: Why Jews Should Rejoice at the Overturning of Prop 8
Wayne Besen: Anti-Gay Hate Groups Waiting in the Wings
I will enumerate a couple of what I felt were their gross errors, in hopes of assisting you in not repeating them,
1-- too much "don't do this to us, we are really nice folks", against the lowest form of smears and preying on the fears of parents.
2-- picketing in GAY neighborhoods -- masturbation --- and picketing the Mormon temple (looked anti-religious) when the Mormons were 2 blocks away at a busy intersection with signs.
3-- "meet in the middle" -- the idea of all going to efffing FRESNO, a more conservative place between San Francisco and LA: the sticks, no media coverage of anything there is going to hit 1/10 as well as demonstrations in major TV markets.
4-- not enough guts to say the truth to the public about the Mormon and Catholic campaigns.
The whole thing was like that Saturday Night Live skit from a few years ago about the organic Lesbians talking in circles.
And to you--- I think "their house of cards has collapsed" is dangerous for us. Sure, the spokespeople from conservative groups whom you see now are looking like fools.
BUT THEY WERE NOT WHO WENT AFTER US AND EFFECTIVELY DID US IN
--- that was the Mormons, who are smart enough to be quiet for
So, our next step, as a developed society, is to stop discriminating people because of their sexual preferences. If I can marry my boyfriend and have children without anyone interfering, why would it legitimate if instead of a boyfriend a had a girlfriend?? Come on, I have some homosexual friends who would make better wives/husbands and parents than myself!!!
Walker also kept careful score of exactly how many points the defense attempted to refute and how many they didn't provide any evidence on at all. He also carefully noted what DIDN'T happen in his courtroom, pointing out that the defense withdrew several witnesses who, when deposed, actually gave testimony favorable to plaintiffs.
I'm all for a long-term PR campaign about "hey, this really isn't that scary, folks." But I also think that just publicizing the exact way Judge Walker arrived at his conclusions will go a long way toward convincing folks that this is a topic whose time truly has come.
You don't want Gays and Lesbians to use your precious word, but it's precisely that word that defines legal and finanacial benefits that would be denied to people on the basis of their sexual orientation if Prop 8 were to stand. That infriges on their civil rights. No one in this country is legally required to have the same beliefs about anything, including morality. You don't own that and you don't get to say what is morally ok for someone else. If we could pass laws about that, I wish we'd pass some saying it's illegal for you to be so mean, arrogant, and self-righteous.
Imagine being with someone 20 years and having to check "single, never married" on a form.
Allowing homosexuals who cannot have children to marry just cheapens and broadens marriage closer to the point of meaninglessness.
As to the economic benefits, that can be addressed by domestic partner legislation.
How about people who marry, but then have affairs? Doesn't that cheapen marriage?
According to your post, elderly people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Nor infertile people, or people who don't want to have children.
Domestic partnerships are not equal...if that's what you want, lobby for changes to give same sex couples the same rights and protections that marriage does.
Sterile men and women? You don't know till they try. Two men? I guarantee you 100% there will be no kids.
Let them unite in a civil union, let employers give them benifits, but don't try and call it marriage.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron and an insult to societies sense of , what is right.
The gay community is so bent on being seen as mainstream thay want marriage changed for them.
I am not anti gay. But gay marriage is wrong.
Modern marriage is (or should be) a legal statement of mutual support between two people.
This begs the question: What will happen if the voters turn down repeal of Proposition 8 in 2012? Will the gays and Lesbians go to a federal judge and have the voters overruled, anyway?
How many children in this country have a functional, "1 man, 1 woman" family? What with divorces happening at a 50% rate and many kids being raised in single-parent families and the anti-gay argument is that one-parent or a two straight parent broken home is better than a household of two gays/lesbians that happen to love each other.
Another argument was that she was worried that Christians would be sued by gays who felt discriminated for, say, not wanting to do business with them. Her argument is basically that people like her wouldn't legally be allowed to discriminate against gay couples? *slaps forehead*
Aside from the hair-curling nature of some of the evidence and testimony, its thorough and unimpeachable findings of fact and conclusions are fascinating reading, for anyone interested.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL
You ask what planet she is on, and I think she's on planet TeaPublican. It's an old planet discovered a while back by desperate conservative evangelicals who really hate how America is becoming more tolerant and well-educated.
I just don't buy it when someone inserts their own personal religious beliefs as to why someone else is allowed to have their individual liberties encroached upon. They assume EVERYONE shares their beliefs and are therefore bound by them. They say it's immoral. I don't see how two consenting adults who decide to commit an oath of eternal love is immoral.
It seems more like the religious conservatives are more irked that gay marriage will make it more difficult to marginalize gays. One of the points the woman made was something like that schools would be forced to teach about homosexuality, as if it's something that doesn't exist. To me, these people seem more insecure and have a lack of faith in their own children, that they can't absorb that information. It's all about control and domination with these people.
America isn't known as the land of the Discriminators, or it shouldn't be.
America is the land of the Free. Practice it sometime, try not to practice prejudicee and discrimination and perhaps you'd find the real America.