Of course, there is a lot of reaction to and analysis of the California Supremes' big decision on Tuesday on gay marriage. Since there are so many I'll probably not comment much on each (and there are many more not included here).
Take one on the decision:
* The court said gays can't use the word "marriage" so why not use a different word, such as "marrij" or "wedding"? Essentially, gays can't call their relationship a marriage (at least not on government forms) but that doesn't mean they aren't marriages. They can still call themselves and each other "husband" and "wife" as they see fit. It's the same suit of clothes with a different label sewn into it.
* The ruling is not retroactive because nothing in the original amendment or government filed justification for it demanded it be retroactive.
* The ruling affirms everything else about last year's ruling -- you're not allowed to discriminate against gays in any way except the label placed on the relationship. So this is a 5% symbolic victory for the Right, and a 95% substantive victory for gays.
Take two on the decision:
There were several questions answered by yesterday's ruling.
* Did the ban modify equal protection enough to qualify as a revision? No. The only effect is in the use of the word marriage.
* Can rights be curtailed with a simple majority vote? Yes. That was done when the death penalty was reinstated in 1972. If rights can be extended, why not curtailed?
* Is it "separate but equal"? Yes, but not anywhere near the extent of the Jim Crow laws, so maybe the claim is overkill. Shouldn't we now concentrate on discrimination in employment and adoption rather than quibbling over a word?
* Can the electorate overrule the justices? Yes.
* Didn't this overturn an inalienable right? No. The Calif. constitution doesn't list any such rights.
Another opinion is that any instance of separate is not equal. Comparisons to Jim Crow laws are appropriate.
Reactions:
A news summary. Many of the commenters to this post call on gay people to riot in response to the decision.
A list of many of the actions taken. 5-10K march in San Diego, hundreds march in Dallas. I haven't seen a summary of all 100 events.
So if we aren't allowed to use the word "marriage" what can we call them?
* Domestic Partnerships imply we're setting up house but says nothing about love and commitment.
* Civil Unions imply legal contracts but says nothing about family.
How about "wedding?" They're married, we're wedded. That at least implies the underlying love.
Most people think of marriage as "until death do us part." So doesn't the theological doctrine of eternal marriage redefine a definition that is millennia old? And can't the Calif. Supremes carve out a narrow exception to deny those that believe in this doctrine the use of the word? That this only affects Mormons shouldn't matter. Let's join together and protect the definition of marriage.
A couple who did get married last year in Calif. (though I think they live in Florida) don't feel all that lucky about keeping their designation of married. One of the pair refers to themselves as "Limited Edition Married Gays" and feels:
My marriage has been quarantined so as not to spread to the general population. We are the swine flu of marriages in California. The marriage certificate we proudly have framed in our home now seems hollow, like an antique or oddity that no longer holds the same power it once did.
The word marriage matters. A survey of married gay couples reports that being married has influenced such things as:
* 42% say "My family is more accepting of my sexual orientation."
* 69% say "I feel more acceptance in my community."
* 72% say "I feel more committed to my partner."
* 62% say "My family is more accepting of my partner."
In other words, gay marriage has the power to ease discrimination.
A slideshow of demonstrations. I'm not quite sure why out-of-focus movie posters start appearing after about 25 images. They're not even gay movies.
In response to my posting about the ruling, my friend and debate partner responded.
I wrote: "There is nothing in the constitution that says a majority cannot take away the rights of a minority, even in an amendment to that same constitution."
Big legal concept! I truly hope this is overstated or missing its very limiting context. If not, a true hell-cauldron of evil opportunities awaits us. For example, the Christian majority of California could ban the practice of all other religions. Or whites could decide that persons of color may not be employed in the state. (Of course, I fear neither: The federal Constitution stands in the way of such extremes.)
Yes, the California ban stands, even though national trends are running strongly the other way. I am disappointed. Not the work I want and expect from the court.
I wonder how much the justices worried about a backlash if they slapped down the bigots. Current economic times are very stressful -- we have seen a series of multiple slayings worldwide -- and the social fabric is stretched to some degree. You wrote today about the potential (which I think is small) of violent consequences if the ban was overturned. This act of judicial cowardice permits a cooling-off period after which the ban, beyond all control of its proponents, seems likely to be repealed. I don't think the Prop Eighters will fool the public twice.
I don't think they'll fool the public twice either, especially since many blacks and other minorities now see how much they could lose if their own rights came up for a vote.
Some of the news out of the Michigan rally (alas, no link) is that preparations are underway to attempt to overturn our own marriage protection amendment in 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment