Kathy Griffin Twitter'd about it, Perez Hilton screamed "wrong, wrong, wrong," and Miss California practically did an I Told You So.
What a week of mood swings.
The issue? Gay Marriage. California, a state that typically sets a good example for freedom and civil rights, had many people scratching their heads on Tuesday when the court upheld Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage.
The contentious Prop, which voters passed by a narrow margin in the November, only seemed to re-stoke the fires of the Gay Civil Rights movement in the state. Still, there was some good news Tuesday -- the court also upheld the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California last year.
Meanwhile, a gaggle of celebrities came out to voice their opinions. George Clooney told E! that, "This just should invigorate people to get it back on the ballot in 2010 and 2012 and every two years until all people are allowed a basic civil right."
Still dusting herself off of that gay-marriage-remark scandal, Miss California Carrie Prejean quipped on Fox News that she was so "not the bad guy! I'm glad the people in California got to vote on this and that the decision was made."
The previous most recent round of gay marriage debates in the state actually came about in May of 2008, when California courts initially approved gay marriage. But that only gave birth to Prop 8.
Interestingly enough, back in November, I interviewed spoken word titan-activist and IFC talk show host Henry Rollins about Prop 8. It was a downright riveting interview, actually, and Rollins' passion -- for any cause -- was downright contagious.
"When you get down to it, [Prop. 8] comes from some very hateful, ignorant beliefs," Rollins told me in an Advocate interview. "It's not coming from anything that makes any sense. It's nasty and un-American, really. Anybody that respects life and people's freedoms, Democrat, Republican, it should not matter. And it makes me angry that people spent money outside of California to try to bedevil this thing. It's just appalling. But in this day and age, I am not surprised."
The bottom line? California can do better -- and ought to -- especially now that Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Iowa have given same-sex marriages an official green light. New York may follow.
I've found some noteworthy information on the Equality Action Now site for those opponents of Prop 8 who are curious to know what actions can be taken next. In the meantime, it never hurts to hear the voice of the people.
At a recent rally in Santa Cruz, California -- that spirited Bay Area hamlet, which had one of the biggest voter turnouts for No on Prop 8 back in November -- former long-time assemblyman John Laird spoke out about the issue, among other things. I was on scene to gather comments.
This is just like the story of the woman jogging in southern California who was killed by a mountain lion a few years ago. The fund which was started for the slain cougar's orphaned pups received more donations than the fund for the woman's orphaned children! Ethic Soup blog has an excellent article on the propositions at:
http://www.ethicsoup.com/2008/11/controversial-caged-chicken-ban-passed-by-landslide-in-california.html
ProtectMarriage.com, the backer of Prop8, tried to push a similar amendment in 2006 (the precursor to Prop8). Called the "Protect Marriage Amendment", it explicitly stated that it would deny same-sex couples rights and benefits even in domestic partnerships.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060508183535/www.protectmarriage.com/index.aspx?protect=FAQ
This is a snapshot of the their website FAQ in 2006 (trimmed for length):
===
"Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment allow “homosexual marriage by a different name”?
Answer: No. [...] this amendment would prevent any law from recognizing, or giving rights [to] other personal relationships [...] such as homosexual “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions.”
Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment allow the Legislature [or private employers] to give, the legal rights and benefits of married spouses to [...] “domestic partnerships”?
Answer: No. [...] there would also be no basis upon which to confer rights, benefits, or obligations on such un-recognized relationships.
Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment preserve the rights, benefits, and legal status of marriage for only a man and a woman?
Answer: Yes! Since traditional marriage would be the only legally recognized union in California , no other type of relationship could be given the legal status of married spouses."
===
Despite assurances that Prop8 would not affect the rights of same-sex couples, this precursor amendment originally set out to deny such rights. And this was in 2006, BEFORE the CA court upheld same-sex marriage!
"The previous most recent round of gay marriage debates in the state actually came about in May of 2008, when California courts initially approved gay marriage. But that only gave birth to Prop 8."
I'd just like to mention that the characterization of the "birth" of Prop 8 is inaccurate. In November 2007 a measure called "The California Marriage Protection Act" -- what would eventually become known as Proposition 8 -- was circulating the Office of the California Attorney General. [Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)]
It's important to note, because Prop 8 was not a response to the Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage in May of 2008. Rather, it was launched before that decision as a calculated, spiteful attack meant to stop the inevitable granting of civil liberties to a minority group.