Sulu's Bliss: Gay Marriage in CA

On the first full day of same-sex weddings in California, what was notable about the scene at West Hollywood Park was what it wasn't.

There were elements of just what you would expect from any event signifying a cultural flashpoint: Protesters waved pickets condemning gay marriage and homosexuality in general. One man in a devil mask taunted those waiting in line to get marriage licenses, while two men dressed as flying nuns made their way through the crowd, congratulating the couples.

Yet even with a media horde to capture it all, it was not quite a carnival. At least in the morning, there was an understated, classy quality to it all, and that was perhaps best exemplified by a couple among the first to get their licenses, George Takei and his partner, Brad Altman.

"It feels glorious," said Takei, who played Sulu on "Star Trek," holding his license.

"I am the happiest guy in the world," Altman said. "I get to be married to George Takei."

Dressed in suits sans ties, the couple plan to be married in September at the Japanese-American Museum in downtown Los Angeles, forgoing what is to be a day of weddings at West Hollywood Park underneath a collection of white tents.

"Now it has meaning," Takei explained to reporters. "We are going to be legitimately married in California."

Altman couldn't resist a sound byte: "I am extremely optimistic that George and my marriage will live on and prosper far beyond November."

They were all smiles and obviously joyous. But they weren't jumping for joy. They were well-prepared for the media glare, ready to become celebrity spokesmen for gay unions, at least for today. Every time Takei talked, I was reminded of Sulu, signaling, in a calm and collected, non-emotive voice, some kind of danger to Captain Kirk.

In that same tone, Takei took note of the protesters, saying that "they need to equally respect the diversity in California."

"If they want respect, they have to be respectful, and they are being disrespectful," he said, although acknowledging they still had a right to be there.

"They cannot put their personal religious beliefs on us and write it into law."

Then a West Hollywood official pulled them away from the park, from the throng that included the gay press and local media and ABC News, for a sit-down interview. The protesters, too, had left, at least momentarily, and the line to get licenses started to look like, well, just a line. I ran into one couple who were getting married again, having seen them in San Francisco four years ago. The big difference: Their baby is now a young tyke.

"There is nothing extraordinary," Takei said. "We are just like John and Mary. We are just part of the diversity of America."

Originally published on Variety's politics and entertainment Website, Wilshire & Washington.

Comments

[flanardiente]

Opposition to gay marriage is almost entirely religious. Christian opposition to homosexuality is almost entirely based on a list of prohibitions and "abominations" listed in Leviticus, which also include the "abomination" of eating shellfish--clam chowder anyone?--and a screed by good old St Paul, the original televangelist, in Acts, whose own sexuality, not to mention mental stability, is problematical at best. (I'd include links, but--it's in the Bible, anyone who's really interested can find it.) Those who strenuously oppose gay marriage on non-religious grounds invariably turn out to be the kind of hairpins whose interests in gay sexual practices would have a roomful of psychologists nodding like they were falling asleep. The whole "gay agenda" thing is as moronic as the "gateway" drug thing is for marijuana. Benjamin Franklin--who as we all know sure as hell wasn't gay--thought that the motto of the new Republic he helped birth should be "Mind Your Business."

Having said that, congratulations to George and Brad and everybody else. I'm not gay and I've never been married, but I raised and supported a whole VW microbus full of kids and I'm still best friends with their mothers.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

I have been a Trekster for longer than I have been a Liberal. I can give you the dimensions of James T. Kirk’s Enterprise as well as what the ‘T’ stands for. As for George Takei, as an actor, he is easily superior to Captain Hamasaurus.

But I am also, as mentioned, a Liberal. I vehemently oppose the Death Penalty, and even more strongly support the right to Unionize. I also support Choice, as well as a National Health Care Program. And just as with the Democratic Party, which I always vote for, I oppose Gay Marriage, but support civil unions.

As a Democrat I am greatly concerned that the Media’s constant fawning over Gay Marriage will lead to Obama’s defeat in November. Just as Kerry’s lack of vocal support for traditional marriage lead to his loss in 2004.

Because I am a Liberal and a Democrat, I absolutely want Barack Obama to win the White House this November. But I’m starting to worry if the issue of Gay Marriage might be a greater obstacle to Obama’s success than John McCain and the GOP.

[TopDog]

Separate the Church and State in this issue of marriage. Take all the marriages on the State's books and change them to Domestic Partnerships. Have the State for legal purposes, issue Domestic Partnership licenses to all who apply, heterosexual, homosexual, platonic, mutiple partners, etc. Let the Churches marry people ca this is supposed to be covenant with God. No one is offended but it is time for this separation of Church and State to occur.

[clarkbarr]

Bless you, George and Brad!

[rwood5628]

CA Supreme Court Justice George carefully worded decision grounding marriage right as "fundamental." Changes to State Constitution that abrogate such rights are considered "revisions" not "amendments" to the Consitution. Many procedural safeguards prevent such rights from simply being "amended" from the Constitution by simple majority vote.

Such "revisions" require two-thirds vote of both Legislative houses and Governor's signature to be placed on ballot. "Revisions" also requires two-thirds vote of the voters. Not the slightest chance of occurring.

Alternatively, Constitutional Convention may be called to "revise" the Constitution, an extremely cumbersome process conservatives will think twice about since would open Pandora's Box of potential revisions not to their liking including such conservative "sacred cows" as the two-thirds requirement to pass a State budget through the Legislature.

Even if "amendment" to Constitution passed, language in George's opinion makes likely the Court will overturn abrogation of "fundamental right" as "revision" rather than "amendment."

Still, best not to take chances. Must take proposed "amendment" seriously and beat it back. Likelihood of extremely high turnout in November heavily scewed toward "progressive" political sectrum makes this best time for this initiative to appear. If successfully beaten back now, will provide political cover for Court to overrule subsequent initiatives conservatives will later try to "amend" the Constitution in election cycles with very low turnout.

Must register and inspire many progressive voters over next several months not only to elect Obama and "down-ticket" progressives; will also serve to defeat marriage initiative.

[HollywoodBill]

Should the Constitutional Amendment defining same sex marriage pass and were the California Supreme Court attempt to overturn it--just attempt-- there would be a severe political price to be paid. Just like Rose Bird, the Supreme Court Justice who never found a death penalty case that she could agree with.

California Supreme Court Justices are NOT appointed for life. The voters must approve the Justices after their first 12 year term. And, in the case of Rose Bird and her death penalty avoiding cronies, a recall movement began. Twice. Thrown out on technicalities. Eventually her term limit was up and she, along with 3 Justices were denied another term. Every so often, the Justices need to be reminded that this is the government for the people and by the people.

Ironically, Californians were well on the way to allowing same sex marriage, even if polling had indicated it somewhat stalling. Had the Justices stayed their own ruling, it would have been a clear yes or no matter and the chips would have fallen wherever they might have fallen. Now the battle cry is JUDICIAL ACTIVISM and it is muddying the issue.

IF the amendment passes AGAIN and the Justices attempt to touch it, there will be recall petitions out so fast that a special election might occur and probably happen.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Aww... Still smarting that the courts didn't stay their ruling before the November proposition?

Blah, blah, blah. This is already a non-event.

Even if the proposition passes, it will be narrow, and will only be a temporary setback. At worst, Civil Unions would fly through the legislature. The Supreme Court has already decided that no matter what "marriage" is, Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions aren't it and aren't a violation of a ban on gay marriage.

The social conservatives in California once again hoping against hope that their candidates will not go down to defeat statewide will be disappointed yet again when Obama crushes McCain in the Golden State.

[realityczech4u]

I have no doubt that many like yourself are relying on some twist in the law or a judicial maneuver of some sort to subvert the will of the people. Too bad so many have such contempt for democracy and government of, by, and for the people.

[ProudLiberalDan]

1) There is no guarantee the "will of the people" will vote the way you want them to. Will you still be defending the "will of the people" if the gay marriage ban is voted down?

2) Inalienable and equal rights shouldn't be up to a public vote anyway.

[stsparky]

Everyone deserves to have their love legitimized as long as we're talking adults.