Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Bowing to Fear, candidates ignore historic nature of CA decision
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a historic ruling that overturned a law denying gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage. For millions of people like me, it was a moving moment - a moment where we were recognized as being equal in every way in the eyes of the law. A moment that we aspire to see become reality in every corner of America.
Hillary Clinton had this to say about this incredibly important ruling:
"Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."
Barack Obama had this to say:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
Seventy-five words and fifty-four words, respectively, about a 172 page ruling that time will surely find to be the definitive ruling on marriage equality. This ruling will be cited in every marriage case that will be argued in the future. The thoughtful, well-written decision provides the pathway to ending one of the last vestiges of civil discrimination in America. Yet, our presidential candidates couldn't even muster the effort to acknowledge its importance. Disappointing would be a mild word to describe my feelings about them on this issue.
In 1948, California became the first State in America to overturn a ban on interracial marriage. In its decision on Tuesday, the California Supreme Court cited its own words from that 1948 decision. This New York Times piece, titled 'Same-sex marriage, racial justice find common ground' shows the parallels drawn between the two issues by the Court itself:
Not long into the oral argument before the California Supreme Court in March over whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, Chief Justice Ronald M. George showed his hand.Three times he quoted from the court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, a high point in the history of a prestigious and influential court.
"The essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice," Chief Justice George said, quoting Perez.
Without doubt, this is the next step in America's journey to live up to the founding principle that all men are created equal. After the Perez decision in 1948, it took the U.S. Supreme Court until 1967 to overturn the remaining unconstitutional laws banning interracial marriage. Even then, public support for interracial marriage was incredibly low.
Today, America is closely divided on the issue. But we know where this is headed. It is in keeping with the tradition and history of America. After all, our nation has a history of making people equal.
Yet, our candidates fail to speak about it in real and honest terms. "I believe marriage is an issue best left to the States" is a very common position.
This all boils down to one thing. Fear.
Our candidates, our politicians, our political parties all fear the pushback from the religious fundamentalists in America. They fear that criticism so much, that they lack the courage to take action that would invite that criticism. By doing so, our candidates make the fundamentalists stronger and perpetuate a society where gay and lesbian citizens remain at the back of the bus.
Neither candidates' statements are even on their website with other statements and news releases. Again, we are invisible. On the heels of the most significant victory for equal rights for gays and lesbians, we are invisible to the two most visible political figures today.
Rather than bow to non-existent criticism from an extreme political faction in America, our candidates should honor values that we all share; love, acceptance, and understanding. Honoring those values will require embracing the message sent by the California Supreme Court, embodied in this excerpt from the majority opinion:
"...retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise - now emphatically rejected by this state - that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."
Throughout history, we've seen fundamentalists lead the way in misusing religious teachings in order to justify discrimination. Today, it's being applied to gays and lesbians. We should stand up against it every time we see it and our leaders should serve as an example of that. In this instance, Obama and Clinton have failed us. We can only hope they will realize their mistake and correct it in order to honor the finest values and traditions of America.
Lane Hudson is Director of Communications and Strategy for Faith in America, a non-profit seeking to end the misuse of religion to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians. Learn more at www.faithinamerica.com
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
Please remember that a central theme of the Obama campaign is that change comes from the bottom. Senator Obama has taken a very clear stand on full equal rights for GLBT people, and he has also been very clear that simply electing him president will not immediately generate a utopia. There are too many crucial and fundamental problems that will take hard work and a movement to overcome. And progress will be incremental and too slow for many of us. The analogy of voting rights taking precedence over overturning miscegenation laws is a good one, I think.
So organize and energize a movement for equal rights to marriage from the bottom and I will join you. Just don't expect a simple change in presidents to do it for you, for us.
The decision in Perez v Sharp found that it was unconstitutional to deny a couple from marrying because of race. It had nothing to do with marriage, but everything to do with racism. The recent California Supreme Court decision changed the definition of marriage in order to allow glbt people to marry. It is intellectually dishonest to compare the two! Now that marriage is legally viewed as a civil right, I assume that everyone will be in favor of polgamy, polyandry and any other form of togetherness. This way everyones civil rights will be honored and protected.
Intellecually dishonest? The California Supreme Court disagrees (read the ruling). If Perez had "nothing to do with marriage, but everything to do with racism," this decision equally has nothing to do with marriage (which doesn't change) but everything to do with homophobia -- discrimination against gay people.
Discrimination you would apparently like to continue.
I disagree, the silence from everyone since the CA decision has been wonderful. After the Hawaii there was outcry followed by DOMA, after Massachusetts there was outcry followed by FMA and now after California there is silence followed by more silence.
It really wasn't that long ago that Joe Solmonese and Hillary Clinton were leading us in the fight against FMA. I was there and part of that team - I am glad we are making progress now - not fighting against those trying to take away right from us.
Couldn't that be interpretted that the time is now?
I think so.
I really am enjoying the silence - not just from the candidates but from the groups who were so vocal after the MA decision in 2003/2004. They are all remarkably silent! It's preliminary and qualitative, but it may mean gay marriage is more acceptable to people than it was only five years ago. This is a sea-change from previous years.
Besides, I can wait until after January 20, 2009 to hear the candidates speak out more on this issue.
The silence can also be attributed to the court's timing. All parties, both pro and con, have options available to them. Presently there are 1.1 million signatures awaiting verification to put an amendment to the California Constitution on the November ballot that would ban same sex marriage. 760,000 signatures are required. It is virtually certain to be on the ballot.
Prop 22 was an initiative statute that passed with 61.4% of the vote in 2000. It did not amend California's constitution. The new initiative will amend it if passed and will nullify the Supreme Court ruling. As of May 15th, a SurveyUSA poll indicates that the amenment would pass 52% to 36%. But the timing of this ruling allows everyone in the state to have their say on the matter and to vote in the November election. In the meantime, a stay will most likely be granted that would prevent any same sex marriages until after the November election.
It has been awhile since there has been a very heated initiative on the ballot. Prop187 and the Briggs initiative come to mind. But this will be conducted in a civilized manner with both sides able to give it their best and try to win. But make no mistake, it will NOT be decided by the California courts. Utltimately the voters will have their say and one side will have to learn with disappointment.
It seriously is time for someone to gather 1 million+ signatures and overturn the Initiative process in California. It has to be more of a headache for Californians than it is worth? right?
"Utltimately the voters will have their say and one side will have to learn with disappointment."
-------------------
Nope.
The long term struggle for gay equality will not stop even if this initiative passes in November.
Time is on our side.
Does anyone honestly believe that any of the three remaining likely candidates would actively campaign against gay marriages? I don't. However, it is an issue that has to be handled carefully. There is a big difference in how some voters will react, between a nominee who does nothing on this issue, and one who campaigns for gay marriage rights. No candidate who wants to get elected is likely to come out in support of gay marriages.
This is what I think will happen: Republicans will try to mobilise their base around this issue, painting this as a Democrat sponsored plan.
Democrats will try to ignore the issue, not wanting to do anything that could hurt the cause of gay marriage rights, but not wishing to lose fundamentalist voters who might otherwise have been tempted to vote for them.
Overall, the timing of this court decision may help the Republicans.
The gay right to marriage issue really needs to be on the back burner until after the presidential election.
Listen to this clip and get a preview of Obama's problem come November.
Gays are not going to come out and vote for him:
http://airamerica.com/content/marriage-and-madonna
He better do something proactive about this issue or he has lost us for good.
Gays do win elections, just ask Bill Clinton.
With due respect to all gay people.
I think war, foreign policy and a depressed economy trump gay issues every time.
Moreover, like guns and religion, gay issues are only wedge issues in elections when there are not bigger fish to fry like WAR, FOREIGN POLICY and a depressed ECONOMY.
Therefore your little cry for attention, when the court's decision came out in FAVOUR OF gay rights (I live in South Africa where gay people can actually get married so forgive me if Im a tad jaded.) seems a little petulant and attention-seeking.
The important issue is that gays can get married in California. Both Dem candidates have acknowledged the historicity of the decision. Its important for sure. But compared to WAR, FOREIGN POLICY and a depressed ECONOMY?
Time to get over yourself.
As a lesbian - I will say this: I agree to an extent...of COURSE there are more pressing issues going on right now - but that doesn't mean that anything and everything are *always* "more important" than obtaining my goal of civil equality.
All of the remaining candidates have already expressed their views on gay marriage and at present - NONE of them support it - but they are for civil unions, which is at least a step in the right direction. I'm not dilusional enough to think I should have everything handed to me know on a silver platter RIGHT NOW - I'm willing to keep chipping and working towards my goal....
...but I'd also like to say that while I DO possess a certain level of patience.....don't expect me to sit on my hands forver while the rest of the country figures out when it would be "appropriate" for me to fight for my own equality.
"Time to get over yourself."
--------------------------------------------------
I don't believe this post was "due respect" at all.
Minimizing gay and lesbians struggle for equality as merely a "cry for attention" is offensive at the very least.
Social justice rarely comes on a convenient and expedient time table.
Should non-whites in South Africa have waited for a politically convenient time before pushing to end Apartheid?
No, I didn't think so either.
Lane,
It's being made a big deal about because they've used it already - it's old hat now. Republicans don't want to draw attention to it because guess what - John McCain's position is not much different from Hillary or Obama.
Well, this decision is unsettlling, and perhaps it will be overturned. It is unfortunate they have judged that California wants to encourage the gay lifestyle rather than discourage it. Stable hetero families are needed to create a strong society and shore up the population. This feels to me, like another assault on our values.
Stable families are needed. Period.
You're wrong about one fact. Stable FAMILIES, not stable HETERO families are what's required to keep society working well. It doesn't matter HOW the family is formed, only that any children in such a family know that they are loved and that they don't have to worry about their parents breaking up!
This is why it's acceptable to break up in certain circumstances like my own parent's. When they broke up, I suddenly (for the first time in my life) KNEW that both my parents loved me!! Just like I know that both of my step-parents love me!!
I'm a gay man. God bless the california supreme court! But as for Obama or Clinton, I'm fine with their statements. This is a third rail issue that serves only to mobilize the right wing base. I don't need cartwheels from them. I need them to win.
Well said :) . Lets keep things in perspective.
We have place the complete ruling online at
http://www.evendon.net/PGHLookups/Lockyer-v-SFM.htm
The opinion in all details is accessible page by page so it downloads very fast. You will see a complete page list to the left and there is a powerful search.
It's a good read and it's a great step.
Don
Because most people cannot relate to the deeply disorienting and occasionally violent array of cultural and sociological challenges faced by your average gay or lesbian, there can never be anything that amounts to a "congratulations" for equal rights from the majority population.
The congratulations and apology can only come from ourselves because we are the only one's that have felt the pain of oppression and hatred very self-righteously imposed on us. The hardships that we faced in our lives to get where we are today seem petty, silly and insignificant to many heterosexuals, particularly the macho male ego.
But what has happened to many of us would make many a male ego cry. The most important thing to remember is that now we can tell the oppressors and bigots; I'll see you in court!
Well said...Thank You.
The California Justices who gave this ruling were mostly appointed by Republican Governors.
6 of the 7 Justices were appointed by Republican Governors.
Great...gay and lesbian couples get the right to marry...and you're still not happy. Shocker. Why don't you celebrate the victory and enjoy the moment. Just because the candidates didn't do cartwheels and headstands you feel cheated. Add this to the list of what sociaty owes you. Quit complaining and enjoy your life for God's sake.
I can understand how thrilling it would be to hear a politician say out loud "I am for equality and justice before the law." Can't you?
I was thrilled when President Clinton said (AFTER he was elected, mind you) that he supported gays serving in the military. I was absolutely dumbstruck when he compromised with the Republicans, offering up his lame "don't ask; don't tell" policy. Why couldn't he have said "Gays serve in the military in Israel and in Great Britain, two of our closest allies. Why is this such a problem for us?"
He didn't say that....he let Newt Gingrinch define him and his policy. He caved. I never respected him after that.
I'd like to suggest that everyone get out a copy of "Letter from Birmingham Jail" and read the part where Martin Luther King responds to his brother ministers who say "the time for integration is not now" and "we must wait; we must not try the patience of the majority"
It is NOT wrong to wish our politicians were more courageous. It IS ethically ambiguous to tell a member of a stigmatized minority to "bide his/her time."
Yes, Clinton and Obama are both avoiding a principled stance, but, my god, I wish I lived in a country where they didn't feel they needed to.
Here is a link to the text of Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
You are right that there are so many parallels in what Dr. King wrote and what we desire today in our work for equality. I would also suggest his book "Why We Can't Wait", which I read about once a year for inspiration.
Both of the nominees released positive statements applauding the decision, and you're mad because they didn't halt their campaigns to throw a ticker tape parade? It doesn't take 172 pages - or even 172 words - to say that two consenting adults should have the right to marry, regardless of sex.
So you disagree with Clinton and Obama who do not think gay couples should have equal rights. Civil Unions is not equal, unless of course heterosexuals are also denied marriage and must settle for the back of the bus.
Federal recognition should be limited to civil unions. Marriage is a social construct, leave it to social institutions (churches, civic groups, social clubs) to recognize or not.
Exactly if heterosexuals think that civul unions are the same as marraige but in name only let the government stop marrying people and only acknowledge civil unions.
I believe EVERYONE should have civil unions, hetero or homo, and that if you wish to have a pretty wedding/marriage, feel free to do so. But legally, we should all have civil unions.
Furthermore, I believe that if gays cannot get married and cannot serve in the military, they should not have to pay taxes. You're either a citizen of the United States or you aren't.
And don't give me that "back of the bus" crap. Last I checked, Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with sexuality. I'll be so glad when supporters of gay rights realize that our struggle is PARALLEL and stop trying to jump on the coattails of the civil rights movement when it benefits them, yet become eerily quiet when blackface performers like Shirley Q. Liquor are making the rounds. Bad enough we had to deal with feminists pulling that crap. (Imus, anyone?)
But, Lane...
I think individual states will come around. For either candidate to campaign on gay marriage would be to reduce their campaigns to issues that get people all riled up and lead to even more limitations, while neglecting the issues that include us all.
I am pro-gay marriage but I'm sure glad the campaigns aren't focused on issues that bring the rightwing nutjobs out in force -- it's bad enough as it is with other issues.
In states where civil rights laws covering employment and housing and public accommodations that have added sexual orientation to those laws, the question of gay marriage is far more likely to win in a court case because there's precedent in so many other areas.
I do believe that the legalization of gay marriage is in the picture for all American gays, though it's certainly been a struggle so far.
Loading comments…
I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me...
After a three-night stay in Moscow, the Obamas touched down in Rome on Wednesday so Papa President...
How would you like to live in the White House? Take the HuffPost Poll of World Leaders' Residences...
UPDATE: Paris Jackson also spoke. Watch her moving...
I was sorry to watch, live on CNN, Edward R. Murrow and Emmy Award-winning broadcaster and...
The following post...
It was with interest that I read Dr. Soram Khalsa's post on The Huffington Post...
Below are photos from Michael Jackson's memorial, with Mariah Carey, Lionel Richie, Smokey Robinson,...
OH NOES! What happened on Fox and Friends today, people?
It's been a rocky year for Letterman and Palin. He joked...
Just for fun, the Huffington Post decided Tuesday night to...
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Oscar G. Mayer, retired chairman of the Wisconsin-based meat processing company that bears his name,...
I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me with any news or thoughts, or follow me...
It's summer, the time for weddings! A few of my friends are getting married this summer and fall, so lately...
When making a list of "smart animals," crows probably wouldn't be at the top for...
I get many letters like this from readers...
Posted May 19, 2008 | 01:58 PM (EST)