PROPOSITION 8

Since a majority of this blog's readership is heterosexual females, who have no plans of entering same-sex marriages, in an effort to educate I shall make a somewhat-informed comment on the Proposition 8 ruling in California.

• The backstory: Calfornia legalized same-sex marriage.  Some grumpy people with too much time on their hands campaigned for State Assembly members to create a law that would (a) make same-sex marriage illegal again, and (b) write "no same-sex marriage" into the state constitution.  In the 2008 election, the voters of California approved this new law, which is called Proposition 8.  The catch: any gay people who got married in that brief period of legality were still married.  There were no new marriages allowed.
• That loophole made absolutely no sense.  Is it legal?...is it not?...what's up?
• Some California citizens filed a lawsuit, saying the law is discriminatory because it singles out the gays. After lots of time was spent fighting it out in court, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker agreed with the notion that it is discriminatory. 
• Alas! Foes of gay marriage have a LOT of money at their disposal, and they have promised to take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Once that Supreme Court ruling happens, the issue will end for our lifetime.  Either gay marriage will be legalized or it won't.  Whatever their decision, it will take a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to change it; writing an amendment to the Constitution won't happen, so the Supreme Court ruling will stick.  End of discussion.  So obviously, if the Supreme Court says "gay marriage is illegal," that would be a sad thing for the pro-marriage equality side. :(
• The big gay organizations, like HRC and NGLTF and what-not, tried to gently dissuade people from filing that lawsuit, saying the risk is too great, and it would be better to fight Proposition 8 through the legislative process.  But those big organizations have become somewhat obsolete in recent years.  They have tens of millions of dollars at their disposal, thanks to donations from corporations that want to appear "gay-friendly,"  but they don't do much actual work.  They don't have any actual authority in Washington, D.C.; for example, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is happening because our military desperately needs soldiers, not because they care about the opinions of some gay people who work for gay groups.  (The gay political organizations keep themselves in the news, however, by issuing "proclamations" and "condemnations" and "statements" about the work other people are doing, so it looks like they have a hand in the action.)  As a result, their wishes to avoid a lawsuit were ignored.

So now we'll see what the Supreme Court says.  Because it is a partisan branch of government (it's not supposed to be), and Conservative justices outnumber Liberal justices, there's a slight probability the Supreme Court will make gay marriage illegal and that would suck.  But they also may keep it in the jurisdiction of each state, which would mean things won't change from what they are now—states define marriage independently, so it's legal some places and not others—which is better than nothing.  Maybe the lawsuit was a mistake, maybe not...fingers crossed.

Comments

[s__n]

The situation at the Supreme Court level isn't as bad as you make it out to be. There is no way the SCOTUS could rule that gay marriage is "illegal, period". The worst they could do is rule that individual states have the right to rule gay marriage illegal if they choose.

Which means the fight just goes back to the state level. And it's pretty obvious that the trend is for states to make this legal. I think we could easily see a majority of states accepting gay marriage in our lifetimes.

Far from perfect, but clearly marching forward. Cheer up!

And if the US Congress passed a law making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation wrt marriage then that's a whole different ballgame/issue/case. Fat chance of that happening though. They're not even willing to force the military to ditch DADT, passing a bill that says "you can get rid of it IF YOU WANT TO (hint: they don't)."

[Rock in Sunny FL]

You did not mention the one statement of fact in the judges Prop 8 ruling which may be the deciding factor going forward: that this is a question of civil marriage not reliigious/church marriage. Because civil marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults it is discriminatory to not allow a specific segment of society to participate in contract law simply because they are not heterosexual. Civil marriage and church/marriage are two separate things and should remain that way.

[JM]

Why do heterosexual females in particular need to be educated about the Prop 8 ruling?

[dan renzi]

JM: I say this only because gay people are usually more informed on what Proposition 8 is about, simply because it is primarily about them.

The "female" reference is mentioned only as a frame of reference about this blog's readership; it is not suggesting an inherent nature of females needing a particular type of education.

I feel like writing something smart! E pluribus unum.

[JM]

I appreciate the intent, but I think you underestimate your readership.

[Diane]

I (hetrosexual female) appreciate your point of view on this. I thought I was informed but now see a different stance of it that I hadn't thought about before.

What makes me nuts about this issue and others is that the right wing is always talking about less government in our lives (which usually equates to more money in their pockets), but yet they want to be all up in our business about marriage, abortion and other personal, moral decisions. I don't even think the issues should be governed by law - to me it should be moral/spiritual issues to be decided by each person, not a law.

PS - love your blog - read it every day.