The fight for gay marriage in California has been a tough one during the last decade. In 2000, Proposition 22 was passed by 62% of the state's voters, limiting marriage to a man and a women. Its since been sent to the State's Supreme Court. Gov. Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed Gay Marriage Bills sent to him by the California Legislature, the second as recently as last year. "He will uphold whatever the court decides," Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson said after the bill's original passing.
Fearing the court's decision, the Family Research council has launched a ballot initiative for a Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage in California. "After oral arguments in the case, it appears very likely that the majority of judges on California's highest court will rule against the current meaning of marriage, opening up God's ordained institution to same-sex couples," they said in a March fundraising email.
Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.
Obviously aware of what's coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC's proposed amendment, "I will always be there to fight against that," he said to huge applause this weekend at a Log Cabin Republican Convention in San Diego. He went so far as to call the initiative a "waste of time" and acknowledge that the people of California are, "much further along on that issue." The latest Field Poll shows only 51% of Californians oppose full gay marriage, an 11 point drop since 2000.
There seems little doubt that California is moving toward full gay marriage equality.
Near the end of February I flew out to Los Angeles to join a coalition of gay activists to lobby Gov. Schwarzenegger & First Lady Maria Shriver to publicly oppose the Family Research Council's initiative. One of the group's main organizers, Kevin Norte, wrote on The California Log Cabin blog, "Someone had to fire the first shot. We did. We had some powerhouses there and the message was clear. We were not going away."
The coalition had a broad base, including; Matt Foreman (Executive
Director, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force), Damon Romine
(Entertainment Media Director, GLAAD), Geoff Kors (Executive
Director, Equality California), Charles Robbins (Executive Director,
The Trevor Project), Mayor John Duran (President, Equality California
& Mayor of West Hollywood), Charles T. Moran (Log Cabin Republicans LA
Chapter President), James Vaughn (LCR CA Director), and the organizers
Don Norte (Governor's Committee on Labor for People With Disabilities)
and Kevin Norte (LCR CA PAC Director).
Kevin and Don kept on the Governor, reminding him of his commitment to equality. He listened.
Follow Ryan J. Davis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ryannewyork
What I do know is that your timing in posting this won't do any favors to those of us who support gay marriage here in California.
According to Equality California, a marriage equality organization here in our state, the anti-gay marriage forces are very close to getting enough signatures to put an anti-gay marriage initiative onto the November ballot that would make gay marriage unconstitutional in our state. They're paying people to go out and get signatures so they can stop gay marriage here in California. They've almost reached their goal of getting the 1.1 million signatures they need to nullify anything the Supreme Court may decide, by paving the way to get an anti-gay marriage amendment added to our state Constitution.
Your article leaking the "news" of a pro-gay marriage Supreme Court decision, however accurate or not, is a gift to their side. It's all their need to stoke the fears of the terrified anti-gay marriage folks, assuring they will get those last signatures before the April 21 deadline.
Thanks a lot.
Now if someone wanted religious recognition of their marriage ---they could then have a Church or religious wedding IF the Church agreed. No Church would be required to marry anyone straight or gay if they did not wish to.
Rationale: Church and State are separate under the US Constitution. For many years the Church has been doing the State's business for them and registering marriages. This should not be and needs to be changed in order to get the Church and State completely out of bed with each other.
Its past time we put these small-minded prejudices behind us -- certainly no one has to support gay marriage if they don't choose to do so, but likewise those who do not support said marriages should not have the right to keep gay couples from getting married if that is what they wish to do.
Hopefully California (my state) will be progressive enough to address this directly and right a wrong that should have been directly addressed quite some time ago.
And here I thought that our constitution guaranteed us separation of church and state. When politicians and their like keep using their God as an excuse to deny an entire group of people from sharing a basic freedom, it starts to look like that separation is nothing more than lip service.
On the flip side, I can understand a religious person who believes that homosexuality is a sin feeling a strong aversion to being told that gays have to be allowed to wed in their church. Of course this is not what the fight for gay marriage is, but I believe this is what a lot of people hear and/or think when the topic is brought up.
As for the God part: well Tammy Faye said it best "God don't make no junk" :)
it's my experience that this is not what they are worried about. they don't want the state to recognize gay marriage as valid because they don't want to have to recognie them as legal even outside of their church. and, they don't want to have to explain it to their chidren
What I wanted to say is that instead of tooting their cute horns that they were not 'going away' all these rich white gays should have been saying.... we will be the first ones out of the state with all our $$$$ if we don't get marriage equality soon.
Running to another state is sort of cowardly. California is ground zero for change and let's hope we continue to make progress. To do that everyone needs to work together.
Until the feds see it the same way, today, April 15th, will always cost the GLBT community much more than our straight counterparts. I guess this will help to keep social security solvent a bit longer. ;)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04/14/gay.taxes.ap/index.html
You can bet your bottom dollar that if the mean spirited holy rollers get their wayl; there will be no same sex marriage and marriage will be defined in the State Constitution as only between a Woman and a Man. I fail to understand these people. How does it affect them personally if a gay couple is married?? Not at all unless they have a gay kid and we should feel sorry for this child because you can bet that this child is being subjected to cruel and unusual trreatments by the Exodus and like minded folks.
Arnold didn't come out in support of same sex marriage. He came out against the amendment that might be presented to the voters in the November election that would ban same sex marriage. His position is one of indifference and he stated that on several occasions. His view is if the courts or the people want it, he will follow the law and support it. He has historical precendence. In 1977 ex Governor Reagan came out against an intiative that would have prevented gays from teaching in any schools in California. It was defeated and Reagan's departure from the social conservative wing of the GOP was a major factor.
Predicting the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling on the Federal or state level is a fool's mission.
Obama is in favor of repealing DOMA in its ENTIRETY!
What has Obama suggested in replacement? What has he suggested he will encourage lawmakers to pursue in the aftermath of abondoning DOMA completely? The legal challenges and chaos resulting from such a knee-jerk, "pandering" approach to the situation reveals a certain lack of depth of understanding I would think.
I think that the approach of educating people, reaching out and showing that we gay men and lesbians are people who deserve and demand respect is working quite well. I prefer to continue working hard rather than being promised something unrealistic.
DOMA in it's entirety ALREADY does that. Gay marriage is perfectly legal in Mass., but those unions are not recognized outside of that state, nor by the federal government. So, please, before you start citing a policy or group of policies that supposedly protect, make sure that is actually what they are doing.
Marriage is at best a social custom with no real underlying validity. It is an artificial contstruct that was invented for the purposes of property and paternity and has no real meaning in an open democratic society where "each" person has the same rights. Marriage confers on people who "couple" additional rights and priviledges and in that sense discriminates against those who choose not to couple.
The government has no right to be involved in the mating and coupling activities of its citizens nor can it establish a good and reasonable cause to be involved in these biological and social arrangements, not for the good of the individual, the people, or the country.
The real battle, therefore, should not be whether to grant gays, transsexuals, or other alternative gender selections the right to marry but rather to get the government out of our personal lives and stop giving incentives for marriage - an archaic social and religious custom of dubious merit.
Gays who insist on the right to marriage and with it the rights and priviledges conferred therein are themselves discriminating against those of us who eschew marriage as an archaic vestige of the patriarchal past.
The courts have many times over recognized that the government does indeed have a vested interested in the social arrangements of its citizens. The government does have right and desire to promote those things which have beneficial effect for the country as a whole. Whether you believe that those are valid or not is irrelevant for the purpose of the arguement of gay marriage.
One class benefits from the arrangement and another class is explicitly denied those benefits: Thus the violation of the equal protection guaranteed by the constitution. Simply choosing NOT to avail yourself of those benefits does not equate to being denied them and thus you can't claim discrimination. As you said yourself you eschew marriage, you are not denied marriage.
Cute attempt at redefining the arguement though. I'll give you credit for at least swinging the bat.
Besides, if you don't care if gays are allowed to marry and it wouldn't affect you in any way then why would you vote against it?
See what I did there...
So many gay people are their own worst enemy, fail to stick together for a common goal and that is one of the problems in obtaining civil and human rights for gay people which are theirs and they deserve to begin with BUT have been taken away just like civil rights were taken away after reconstruction from black people and rights suspended for Japanese Americans during WWII when they were thrown into Concentration Camps.
We speak now against the day when our Southern people who will resist to the last these inevitable changes in social relations, who, when they have been forced to accept what they at one time might have accepted with dignity and good will, will say, `Why didn't someone tell us this before? Tell us this in time?' "
I believe that someday Americans will look back on the treatment of gays and lesbians with shame and regret, recognizing the profound violation of human rights and liberties. And so I speak now against the day when Democrats will have to explain why they did not lead when they had the chance.