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

Follow Lane Hudson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tlanehudson

Comments

[booksnmore4you]

It is the fool who would push this issue at this particular time. It's political suicide.

Lane, you're playing the fool.

[AnotherTry]

If not now, when?

With all the republican gay scandlas of late, we can finally take this issue away from them.

But reading the post here, you people don't sound progressive or democratic at all. You sound like a bunch of losers.

Obama talks about change. What was he talking about? Was it all lies?

[barbwiregrrl]

BINGO Obama is no more change agent than any other politician he talks the talk but each time he has had the opportunity to walk the walk for LGBT folks he turns his bacvk...

IE: Donnie McClurkin, Rev Wright, LGBT marriage...all a shame from Obama. I am tired of lip service....even from an agent of so called change.

[jhamm1]

That's not fair.

As much as many of us approve of gay marriage, we realize that a prerequisite to enacting such progression is to place a democrat in the oval office in the first place. And unforunately, although a potential endorsement of California's measure by either Clinton or Obama would be justified in principle, it doesn't lend itself to long term benefits considering the sheer number of voters who would likely alienate these candidates if they were to openly endorse gay marriage.

The results: we lose the election, the Republicans remain in control, and who knows, McCain might even extend legislation to further inhibit the rights of gays and lesbians.

We're not opposing the idea of gay marriage, simply attempting to think strategically in the long term as to the best means of gaining the political power necessary to acheive these measures.

[Lane Hudson - Huffpost Blogger]

One could just as easily make an argument for marriage equality using religious text and religious values. Democrats don't need to run away from the issue, they need to learn how to talk about it. Leadership is desperately needed from mainstream politicians to make this a reality. It's the right side of history.

[jhamm1]

It's the right side of history, but the wrong side of the presidential campaign.

[barbwiregrrl]

Excuse me Lane when would it be a good time for me to have equal rights? I will get out my calender and pencil in that date you decide I am your equal. Lets just hope that I don't die before my partner so that she will not be screwed out of any of the care I provide her via my job such as health care and income.

[cartecay]

Does anyone but me find irony in the fact that a black man supports leaving the question of gay marriage in the hands of the States? Wasn't that what the Southerners said about Jim Crow and segregation? That it should be left to the States? Civil unions, hunh. Separate but equal? Good for gays but not so much for African Americans. I see.

[AnotherTry]

It burns me up everyday.

[barbwiregrrl]

I have had a hard time listening to Obama talk about change when in fact he is the same old story just branded differently. I feel more and more pained by him as the days pass and he keeps talking lawyer BS about how it is not feasible politically for LGBT marraige.....do you think his parents would have felt that way if they lived in Virgina and were not able to marry? Damn strange that a man who claims to understand oppression first hand walks lock and step with bigots about gay marraige.
I will have to hold my nose and vote for him if he is the candidate but he pains me more than Clinton for one reason....I know what I am getting with her...Obama is either intellectually dishonest or he doenst really give a shit about his LGBT consituents.

[JoyceBains]

So what, because he's black he's supposed to believe in gay marriage? Because I've heard from more than a few racist gays in my day. Being in a minority group doesn't mean you empathize with all minority groups.

[Heru1]

You white gays are real funny comparing your gay marriage issue to the oppression of African Americans. Guess what, we have been oppressed by gay and straight whites since the 15th century .

I could care less if white men marry each other, when are you going to give us reparations for annihilating our race?

[AnotherTry]

I know it must be difficult for you to accept, but gay men come in all colors.

So you sound racist and homophobic. Is this the winning colition Obama is so proud of? Count me out.

[zenlikejen]

O..M...G....

Did you SERIOUSLY bring up reparations???

Do you ever wonder why certain stereotypes persist? Look in the mirror.....

[koromuso]

Guess what? Gays have been oppressed since Biblical times.

[ProudLiberalDan]

For centuries, gays and lesbians of all races have been merely killed outright or imprisoned.

So please don't give me any lectures on suffering and discrimination.

There are also, by the way, many African-Americans and other people of color who are also gay and lesbian. Just thought you might like to know.

[JimR]

I am heterosexual, but I support gay marriage and was happy to see it become law here in my home state of Massachusetts. And hopefully, within my lifetime most Americans will see that it poses no "threat" and will come to accept it across the country.

But that day is not here, nor is it close.

Sadly, I have little doubt that if Obama or Clinton made gay marriage rights a big part of their campaigns, the Democrats would go down to resounding defeat in November. Maybe we should concentrate on getting a Democrat in office first?

[AnotherTry]

Yes, such a winning strategy.

How about we just promote democratic values! Doesn't anyone vote for equality and justice anymore?

Obama promised change. What was he talking about? This is just more of the same old divisive politics driven by the right. We need a leader or the dems will lose AGAIN!

[JimR]

Let's wait until he gets the job first. That's all I'm saying.

[MourningDude]

It appears to me that the militant gay marriage lobby demands that the door be opened for them, and then is ALL TOO WILLING to turn around and slam the door in the faces of others.

Just look at the way the FLDS families are being treated, both by the state, and by the media. Look at how they are treated with such contempt by those here.

These are people who just want to love each other and form these family bonds. I don't agree with everything they have ever done, but to seize 464 children based on prejudice and ignorance is outrageous to me.

Where are the gays and lesbians fighting for their rights to marry who they see fit, and fighting to extend rights to polygamists and reduce the age of consent?

Nowhere. They want to be admitted to the party, and then turn around and shun all others.

[booksnmore4you]

Hear hear!

I have been shocked at the foolishness, irrationality, and lack of sound political sense of the militant gay lobby. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face and have been for a very long time.

[Lane Hudson - Huffpost Blogger]

It is neither militant nor extreme to suggest that everyone should be treated equally under the law.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Uh, what is a "militant" gay lobby?

Ah yes, I'm militant if I won't settle for sitting in the back of the bus or having second class citizenship.

If merely wanting equality before the law is what makes me "militant", then I and millions of others stand guilty of that adjective.

[anney]

Balderdash and bol!ocks!

First, the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints group was forcing 14 year old girls and other females into marriage against their will. That's just as bad as forbidding marriage to gay adults who WANT to marry.

And why criticize the gay community for focusing on issues that pertain to just them and whoever else has an interest in gay rights? That's what all movements do -- you stay focused to achieve your goals.

[anney]

Balderdash and bollocks!

First, the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints group was forcing 14 year old girls and other females into marriage against their will. That's just as bad as forbidding marriage to gay adults who WANT to marry.

And why criticize the gay community for focusing on issues that pertain to just them and whoever else has an interest in gay rights? That's what all movements do -- you stay focused to achieve your goals.

[barbwiregrrl]

The reason being FLDS force marragie on 13 year old girls--child molestation is wrong and illegal as it should be...regardless how you paint it....

These children were not seized due to ignorance but due to documented forced molestation of young female children at the hands of mucholder (men in their 50's) raping young girls...do not confuse childhood rape with anything other than what it is RAPE.
ugh the right wing is so intent on blurring the line between consentual, love between two women or two men that they will try and use child rape as smoke screen for their argument. UGH throwing hands up in the air at such ignorance!

[cylindar]

Marriage should not be licensed by any state of the union. That was a mistake to begin with. The states needing revenue started this boondogle by stating that they needed to issue licenses to insure public safety. A medical certiicate showing no major social diseases was required as well as proof of age. The license was a state scam to garner revenue but no one called them on it. A medical certificate being presented to insure public safety does not need a license but simply a stamp of appproval. But the hoax continues. Basically no politician will mention that or take it out of states hands because they will be messing with a revenue base. No politician will mess with that base. So they will not get to the root of the problem to begin with. The only other route is to attempt to legalize unions and marriages. This has its problems as gay marriages do not put children back into the system which is a multibillion dollar industry. Think about it. You are not only fighting the states you are fighting multinational corporations who feed off the baby machine. The gay and lesbian movement is so small that these interests do not have to pay attention to them as they will not make or break an election. If you think that any politician is going to lose an election because you happen to have a certain orientation forget about it.

[robbie]

They're office-seeking Democrats. Honestly, what did you expect?

[MourningDude]

So you're saying that Obama's rhetoric belies his actual principles?

What else is new?

He told us one thing on taking public financing, and said it was a principled decision. Now he's saying something else.

He told us he was going to jawbone Canada and Mexico over NAFTA, while his aides were telling them to ignore everything he was saying.

Is Obama -really- a fresh, new kind of politician? He sounds like the same old kind of politician to me.

[Kalifornika]

Yawn. . . .

[zenlikejen]

LOL...he's a politician - I thought that alone said it all!

[dontshootme]

The question is whether you want to win or lose in November.

Obama or Hillary could give gushing praise to the CA Supreme Court decision. What would that serve? You would see there comments replayed in every newspaper in the midwest and the south courtesy of the McCain campaign and the RNC.

Granted it may make a lot of gays and lesbians feel good to hear Obama and Hillary say those kinds of words, but its not going to help a Democratic victory.

What do you want?
a) A Democrat nominee who says the precise words you want to hear?
b) A victory in November

[AnotherTry]

I want equality.

How do I get it? and don't tell me by being quiet and waiting.

[JimR]

Good luck getting equality with President McCain!

[jhamm1]

I agree.

While I, and many others, support the idea of gay marriage, I cannot ignore the fact that the majority of Americans still oppose it, and Republicans in particular tend to go absolutely ballistic with rage whenever the idea comes up. Granted, publicly appraising this initiative may be justified in principle, but both Obama and Clinton have obviously refrained from doing so knowing that it may cost them the election in the long run.

[ProudLiberalDan]

While I am comfortable with Federally recognized civil unions, assuming Obama will stick to his campaign promises, unlike Clinton who threw us under the bus the first chance he got, there are more important things than a "Democratic victory". If the Democrat is just going to triangulate like Bill Clinton, I'd stick with voting my conscience.

Fortunately, I do not believe Obama would throw us under the bus. If he genuinely fights for Federally recongized Civil Unions, which includes federal benefits and partner-immigration rights, which I currently hope and believe he will, then I think that is a great step forward.

While I loathed Bush's 1st term, let alone his 3rd, I really wouldn't be excited about Bill Clinton's triangulated 3rd term either.

[indypete]

The interracial marriage ban dropped in 1948 and it's now 2008... hmmm, that's 60 years if I'm not mistaken. How come I'm the only guy I know in an interracial marriage? I'd dearly love to welcome my gay friends into the club but I think it'll take a while. Meanwhile, consider this. The judges who put this through were for the most part conservative so the whole concept smells a bit fishy. Did they do this deliberately in order to galvanise the gay-bashing fanatics of the evangelical churches into voting agains the nasty liberals who want to destroy America by allowing hordes of dangerous gays onto the street, violietly bending defenceless straight men over barrels and sodomising them? Let's face it, the religious wing-nut fear of gays is all based on one wierd verse of the Bible depicting just such an unlikely occurrence.

[FLA1]

I am curious as to what would have been a sufficient statement for the writer of this article. It seems if the Cal Supreme Court made a 170+ page ruling, Clinton and Obama did not need to supplement it with a legal analysis. They said they supported and agreed with it. Having said that, this will be a difficult issue as it is going to be an equal protection issue and we still have the issue of whether or not homosexuals should be considered a protected class under the Equal Protection clause. If the Cal Congress overturns it with a law, there will not be much that the Cal Supreme Court can do.

[radmul]

This post points out what utter disappointments both the remaining contenders for the democratic nomination are. They have taken the bigots position on this issue and abandoned us on universal health care on accountability for war crimes and both have failed to use their existing powers as sitting Senators to stop funding the war in Iraq.

[zebra3]

I happen to disagree that the gay community should have expected either Hillary or Barack to respond with an effusive statement about how great this is for the country. Both are 100% supportive of equal rights for gay people. But do you think that Hillary, who is busy appealing to the gun-toting, uneducated, racist (and likely anti-gay) sentiments of voters in swing states is likely to go out on a limb for you right now? And Obama, though 100% supportive of equal rights of gay people, is publicly ambivalent on the specific question of gay marriage.

[ProudLiberalDan]

That's a contradiction. One cannot be "100% supportive" of equal rights for gays and be "ambivalent" on the question of gay marriage.

If Obama really tries to deliver of "Federally recognized" Civil Unions, that is not the end result, but it is certainly progress to equality I can enthusiastically support.... for now.

Personally, as a unabashed liberal, I fully support separation of church and state. Marriage is a church event historically, so let the churches have it and do what they want with it and leave the government out of it for everyone, straight and gay.

I'm of the radical position that the "state", as such, should ONLY be recognizing Civil Unions, period, equal civil unions for straights and gays, and leave the ceremony of "marriage" to some other non-governmental institution such as churches.

This one was one of the options that the Massachusetts Supreme Court said the Massachusetts had to do -- (1) either open the civil institution of "marriage" to gays or (2) turn the civil institution of marriage into Civil Unions for everyone and leave the ceremony called "marriage" to the churches or whoever. THAT might actually bring some spiritual meaning back to a marriage ceremony. However, social conservatives would scream to high heaven about civil marriage being turned into civil unions for everyone.

But then social conservatives tend to scream about everything that they secretly wish they would let themselves do too.

[HollywoodBill]

Don't buy confetti stocks just yet.

There are 1.1 million signatures on a petition to amend the California constitution being checked over in Sacramento. 760,000 are needed to put a Constitutional Amendment to the voters. Within the next 25 days, they will be verified. At that point, a stay will prevent any same sex marriages from happening until after the November election. It is virtually a guarantee that an Amendment to the California constitution will be on the November ballot.

As of May 15, SurveyUSA showed that 52% of California voters would pass a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage. 36% would vote against its passage. There hasn't been a volatile social issue on the ballot in quite awhile. All the presidential candidates will have ample opportunity to voice their opinion on this issue for the benefit of Californians. On national television of course.

When a proposition has 60% support at its outset, it is guaranteed to pass. This one is borderline right now. Judicial activisim will be the rallying cry. The six counties around San Francisco are not the entire state. It's going to be an interesting election.

[KillTheMessenger]

Good. Let the world be known that the US is the land of bigots. It will take decades to wipe this crap off the face of the nation. But eventually it will go away just as interracial marriage went away. All we have to do is to wait for the majority of the bigots to die of natural causes (which should be accomplished by 2030 or so).

The other possibility is that the states with these laws on their books will completely replace marriage with a gender neutral term. In the end the bigots will achieve one thing: to kill the term "marriage" in official use.

[MourningDude]

Why didn't this case include polygamist couples? Why not incestuous couples? Why not underage couples? Why not prostitutes?

Why are gays and lesbians happy to take a bigoted, prejudiced stance against other groups that are discriminated by the same laws they are fighting?

Are they bigots, too?

[CaseyBabes]

Ummm yeah, but marriage beiween a white and black still referred to men and women. Damn bigots..................uh huh, right.

[liveandlearn]

if california does as michigan did, the people will regret it. michigan passed that constitutional amendment back in 2004, with the proponents saying it was not intended to roll back anybody's health insurance or other benefits. our attorney general, whose salary is paid by tax dollars, then sued and sued until the michigan supreme court decided to relinquish all domestic partnership benefits paid with public dollars.

SPREADING AROUND MISERY IS THE WRONG THING TO DO!!!

[HollywoodBill]

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Those are the words that will more than likely appear on the November ballot in California. It is not as draconian as the Michigan initiative. It was market tested and when it was found that there wasn't enough support to include "civil unions," the phrase was dropped. This is a very carefully planned, organized and well financed campaign. It carefully draws a line in the sand that the electorate may not be prepared to cross yet.

While California was moving toward marriage equality, this abrupt ruling of the court that defies the public mood out here might have the opposite effect of what the court intended. Once it becomes a Constitutional Amendment, it cannot be overuled by the Court. The SCOTUS rarely gets involved with state matters. The only way this will be able to be revoked is by voter initiative. A very high hurdle if it should occur.

[pascaljim]

The solution, McCain should deliver a favorable endorsement FOR Gay Marriage. it's a good rumor to circulate...he he.....

[ProudLiberalDan]

There were two anti-gay initiatives circulated.

One simply limited the definition of marriage to straights. That one probably has enough signatures.

The other one was a draconian measure of true bigotry which would have barred civil unions and domestic partnerships too. That one failed to get enough signatures.

Even if the one likely to be on the November ballot passes -- and that is no certainty -- the legislature will immediately pass a Civil Unions bill which I have total faith that Gov. Schwarzenneger will sign, as he said he supports them.

I am encouraged that Gov. Schwarzenneger has said he will not support the measure to write bigotry into the California State Constitution.

[HollywoodBill]

Arnold's official stance on same sex marriage is not one of support. Rather it is following the will of the voters. He has admitted that he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman but that he really doesn't care about it. On two separate occasions he has used his veto power to stop same sex marriage bills that were passed by the Assembly and the Senate. There are not enough votes to overide a veto. Should the Dems attempt to pass a bill before the November election, Arnold would most definitely veto it.

If the state constitutional amendment passes in November, there is no recourse. The CA Supreme Court cannot rule it unconstitutional. At that point, both the Assembly and the Senate wouldn't attempt to overide the public's vote. Should they be so foolish as to attempt it, Arnold would most definitely veto it. But they cannot even try to pass such a bill because the November initiative would be a constitutional amendment, which is basically etched in stone. It would nullify the CA Supreme Court ruling.

It will be on the November ballot, count on it. The US Census Bureau uses 5% as the number of gays in the US. In all countries that have same sex marriage, the number of same sex marriages is about 5% of all gays. Not exactly a huge, pent up demand. Let's see if the CA voters agree with the Justices. At the moment, they don't.

[HaloGuy]

Minor edit below:

As important as this issue remains to me and millions (not hundreds of millions) of gay Americans around the country, I am okay with the two Democratic candidates guarding their speech on this issue until the White House is secured. No matter how strongly I want to be able to marry a man I love, I know that opportunity will never come as long as a Republican holds control of the Executive branch.

Although I wish we were in such numbers lol

[NABNYC]

This is such a Rove issue. Why is it progressives let him get away with it every single election, rallying the log cabin (gay) Republicans to demand the "right" to marry as a way to get the Christians out to vote against Democrats. And here we go again.

Marriage is both a religious and civil institution. No religion should be forced to marry gays if it's contrary to their beliefs. The state should extend full civil rights to all couples, which is what the civil union acts were designed to begin to address.

Most Americans are still against gay "marriage." There is no legitimate reason to begin attacking the Democratic presidential candidate on this issue except to help Karl Rove and the Republicans. It's just that simple.

I'm not saying abandon the issue. I'm just saying wait until the election is over and Obama wins so we can try to avoid re-electing neocons who, among their other possible devastating plans, might just decide to take away all gay rights.

The right to "marry" may be an issue, but it really is not "the" issue in a year when we are in two wars, threatening a third, our economy is in the toilet, people are unemployed and homeless. Let's get our people elected first, then make sure gay people can unionize or marriagize and be just as miserable as the rest of us. (I just stole someone's line).

[klmebane]

i agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly. it's important, but, just as with abortion, it is not THE most important issue right now. there are more pressing things that must be addressed immediately following the election. i say this as a mostly out lesbian. i care about my right to marry the person i love, very much. but i would like to first ensure that the united states will actually still exist in 30 years. equality is important, but if a nation can't guarantee its own cohesion, it certainly can't guarantee equality to all tax paying citizens!

[realityczech4u]

What's this all about? Your obsession with Rove seems to blind you to the fact that the CA Supreme Court set the timing on this one. They could have just as easily waited until mid-November to make their pronouncement. I for one would like to see this campaign focused on important issues that effect all of us and not just a very small, very noisy segment of the population.

[HaloGuy]

As important as this issue remains to me and hundreds of millions of gay Americans around the country, I am okay with the two Democratic candidates guarding their speech on this issue until the White House is secured. No matter how strongly I want to be able to marry a man I love, I know that opportunity will never come as long as a Republican holds control of the Executive branch.

[MourningDude]

There are hundreds of millions of gay Americans?

-boggle-

[ProudLiberalDan]

There ARE tens of millions, probably 20-30 million.