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
Loading comments…
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
As a gay man, I don't find either Hillary or Obama's responses to be particularly problematic. I understand your disappointment. It would be wonderful if they both would go on record in support of gay marriage. However, they both are on record as saying that they oppose gay marriage and support civil unions. They'd be roundly attacked if they changed their public statements in light of a California Supreme Court ruling.
Just the fact that they support civil unions, puts the both of them far ahead of where any presidential candidate would have been in 1948 concerning interracial marriage (let alone gay marriage) and it puts them far ahead of where John McCain is today. Maybe they both secretly support the idea of "gay marriage" and are only publicly opposed to it out of political expediency. Who knows? We can't read their minds. The important point is that Obama and Clinton support gay equality more openly and consistently than any presidential candidates in the nation's history. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. No Democrat can entirely embrace marriage equality, and no reasonable person is asking them to do so.
But Democrats shouldn't be running from gays, either, and that's what Obama and Clinton (and, Edwards and others before they dropped out) have been doing.
Obama's and Clinton's statements are knee-jerk reactions to fear, pure and simple. They didn't have to slap gay Americans (3/4 of whom typically vote Democratic, by the way) so hard and so quickly, but that's what they did.
mike gravel (now running for the libertarian nomination?) and dennis kucinich were vocal and upfront about their feelings on marriage equality. they were all for it. probably one of the reasons they never made it past the early part of race for the democratic nomination.
Politicians will continue to be wimps on equality so long as heterosexual voters allow them to get away with that.
What say you, straight people?
While I support Gay Marriage - I can guarantee that any American Presidential Nominee that comes out and supports Gay Marriage - will simply lose the election.
While I may not like it that is the political reality of the country at this time and we'll get nowhere if we lose while if we win - hopefully incremental change can be made.
Plus if McCain gets elected - with Supreme Court nominations likely coming up in the next 4 years we can kiss goodbye any chance of having the Court on the side of allowing Gay Marriage at all if there is ever a court challenge at some point.
It's not heterosexual voters that are the issue - its homophobic voters that are the problem. Especially the deeply closeted "pray to be straight" overcompensation crowd.
Personally, I find the timing bittersweet. On the one hand, I am all for Team Homo and wish you all the best of luck. Hell, I have never believed in the need for "Gay Rights" because as far as I am concerned, Team Homo is no different than Team Hetero. But thats just me.
On the other hand, the timing couldn't be worse. I fear that the Republicans will use this, as they always do, as a wedge issue and scare up just enough support to beat our man.
I would love to see Barak (lets face it - he won), when questioned about gay marriage simply say, "Whats the big fucking deal? We have far more pressing issues to worry about than two men getting married. Get over it. It's 2008 for Chissake."
But thats just me ...
In the driver's lane, Lane refuses to drive. While he slaps the hands of Hillary and Bambee for not being bellicose, his own limpid use (with lacy excuse) of the word "disappointment" exposes for all to see the reason gays are losers. Their inherent weakness proves all men are not created equal.
Obama's response can also be read as support for *only* civil unions at the federal level, which is what I support personally. Other countries (Germany for one) separate legal recognition of a union (aka civil union) from the religious/social recognition of it (aka wedding/marriage). My husband and I did that ourselves - we were legally joined about 6 weeks before the wedding ceremony our family and friends attended. The government should be concerned with the contract involved, it's social institutions that deal with the social aspects of it. I refer to the partners of my gay friends as their spouses if they've made a life-long commitment to each other, regardless of how many people were present when that commitment was made (even if it was just the two of them, so long as they've let me know that's the level of their commitment - otherwise it's boyfriend/
If conservatives really want to defend and strengthen marriages, mak them more difficult for ALL people to enter into instead of allowing it to be a night of drunken frivolity decision, and make them more challenging to get out of (especially where there are children involved, at least when there are no allegations of abuse), and deal harshly with people who abuse their families. adults involved.
It is unquestionably an important decision, a landmark decision perhaps, and of course the major candidates are worried about full-fledged support for the premise that same-sex marriage should be a constitutional right. They are of course aware that many, many people in the country are going to view this decision as a fringe position, and I think it would be a mistake to force the hand of Obama on the case in a misguided effort to make him "honest" about it, if the net result is that he loses a lot of Bible Belt states he otherwise had a chance of winning. The case itself unfortunately does not go as far as your characterization of it. The S. Ct. in CA limited itself to saying that if the majority of the people in CaIifornia grant the same essential marital rights to two groups (straight and gay) but deny the term "marriage" to one "suspect" category, that denies Equal Protection under the Cal. Constitution. It left open the possibility that the electorate could roll back the domestic partnership or civil union law itself, as a means of eliminating the bias. So the decision is important but unfortunately not conclusive. Get Obama into the White House where he can appoint S. Ct. judges who will support Equal Protection at the federal level and a lasting victory can be achieved.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
