Wedding Bell Blues in California: Queerly, Texas Lends Hope

Jerry Brown, California Attorney General, has given Proposition 8 opponents an early Christmas present. He's asked the state Supreme Court to void the gay marriage ban approved on November 4th.

Even though it's the AG's duty to defend state law, he believes the prop must go because the right to marry is "an aspect of liberty that the Court has concluded is guaranteed by the state Constitution."

As the state's top elected lawyer, Brown is certainly qualified to challenge any measure that discriminates against a group of perfectly legal citizens. He's on solid ground, and when it comes to laws aimed squarely at the LGBT community, he can take comfort in modern Texas political history, odd as that may seem.

In 1979, a Dallas teacher sued the state over its sodomy law. Known as "21.06" in the criminal code, it banned certain acts of intimacy between same-sex couples in the privacy of their home, but not between straight couples. A federal judge ruled the Texas law unconstitutional in 1982 because it violated the constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection.

The state's new Attorney General, the liberal and crusading Jim Mattox, agreed with the judge and withdrew an appeal of the decision that had been filed by his predecessor. Even though the Texas AG, like his west coast counterpart, is charged with defending state law, the job also allows for doing the right thing. Mattox did, and caught holy hell from conservatives.....not that he exactly minded.

Dave Richards, chief of litigation at the time, explained the AG's reasoning in his book Once Upon A Time In Texas: "...we came to the view that we would exercise our best legal judgments; if in that judgment the statute was not defensible on constitutional grounds or on the factual record, then the office was justified in dropping the defense of the statute."

Even the longtime local DA Henry Wade (of Roe v Wade fame) testified that the law had no compelling state interest that he could discern, and he was the guy responsible for prosecuting those who broke it!

Ultimately, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the lawsuit, and 21.06 remained on the books by a razor thin 8 to 7 margin. Mattox, however, was presciently ahead of the curve.

States began looking at their own discriminatory legislation. Kentucky's Supreme Court, for example, tossed out its sodomy law in 1992. Yes, Kentucky, the bluegrass state that often votes red.

Finally, in 2003, came the dramatic dénouement: the United States Supreme Court overturned the Texas law in Lawrence v Texas. The tally was 6 to 3. Ronald Reagan's own Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He was joined in concurrence by fellow Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor. Four of the six justices who overturned the discriminatory provision were appointed by Republican presidents.

Democracy is indeed a slow and steady march forward, and Jerry Brown is the latest foot soldier in the line of fire.

Regarding marriage (or civil union, or whatever term you prefer), churches are free to unite or not unite anybody. Their freedom of choice isn't being questioned. And contrary to what megachurch pastor Rick Warren plainly states as his absolute opinion, Prop 8 opposition isn't the same as approving of incest, pedophilia or polygamy. It just isn't.

It's about the government refusing to issue a non-religious license -- a civil document from a courthouse, not from a house of worship -- to consenting adults who choose a life together, for whatever reasons, in this crazy, mixed-up world.

The delightful film Four Weddings And A Funeral features an old song by George and Ira Gershwin, But Not For Me. Part of its universal sentiment goes like this:

"They're writing songs of love, but not for me
A lucky star's above, but not for me
With love to lead the way, I've found more skies of gray
Than any Russian play could guarantee"

Two people finding happiness with each other is also a universal sentiment, and there's no rhyme or reason to deny it legally.

Comments

[NWBrunette]

Absolutely true and well said. We must push push push for equal rights for all. Whether we're in the LGBT community or not, this issue is important for all Americans.

[GlennInVenice]

Thank you Mr. Williams. Your article was very healing. Sometimes it is only justice that can heal. You can paint injustice with any brush and any color you want. It still bleeds through for what it is.

[nothingmusic42]

and the right represents "the real america?" america was founded by people who were breaking away from a theocracy. the king was god's representative on earth, and to go against the king was to go against god. as a result, personal freedom was of paramount importance to the founders. flash forward 200 years, and we have people (huckabee) who think the constitution should be rewritten to represent "our" christian values. of course, those christian values all seem to revolve around discriminating against a minority. as soon as they impose their religous laws on marriage, will they want to return to the old "wife as property not a partner" rules? then will they want to return to the "only land-owners can vote" laws?

[Dace]

Truth - what a great present to us all! We could really use more of it based on what our country was based on. I hope to be truly equal and live with full human rights in my own country some day.

[JumpDownTurnAround]

Dace I couldn't agree with you more. I only hope it happens in our lifetime!

[TKDuff]

If a Black president can become the president of this country in our lifetime we can only hope that equal rights for all regardless of ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. As much as hope is beautiful, we must continue to fight this good cause.

[M1]

What a beautiful article. Thank you very much.

[Agentprovokatur]

Here's a Proposition for Consideration in California - "Government Anti-Establishment Protection"

In order to comply with Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution which reads in part " . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, . . ." and Section 4 of Article 1 "Declaration of Rights" of the California State Constitution which reads in part ". . . The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." it shall be the law in California that no governmental entity shall be prohibited from the provision of goods or services to any religious institution or organization unless such provision is at a value less than "fair market value."

For purposes of this law "fair market value" shall be defined as the greater of
1) The actual out of pocket cash spent on the provision of such services and/or the cost paid for the goods so provided; and
2) The fair value of such goods or services as determined by reference to recent transactions in such in markets local to their actual provision.

We may not be able to tax them but we sure don't have to subsidize them.

[SillyGit]

They may be taxed. The SCOTUS has already ruled that providing a tax exempt status is the same as providing a subsidy.

IMNSHO - Since many religions are now acting as PACs, they should be taxed. Those that do not interfere with or are not involved with political actions can keep their tax exempt status.

Telling your congregation that they need to confess if they voted for a particular candidate is a horrendous travesty against democracy. I would tell such a priest to go fornicate himself. My ballot is a secret ballot (except that God knows who I voted for). God is not an @sshat, but many of his minions on earth are.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Jerry Brown is not perfect, but I've always liked him anyway. Thanks, Jerry.

[Michale32086]

Very well said...

Michale...­..