Marriage in California
Breaking news: the California Supreme Court has declared that, under that state's constitution, it's illegal to give different names to the legal recognition of same-sex and different-sex couples. (Don't get me started on the term "opposite sex."). California's version of civil unions have been called "domestic partnerships." Now, apparently, they must be called "marriage."
I'm just reading the decision now so I don't have a full formed and cogent response--except wanting to cry with happiness at being declared a full citizen in a state that's more populous than Canada. Read the decision yourself, if you like. The decision mentions the fact that, in 1948, the CSC was the first to strike down its state's interracial marriage ban--19 years before the USSC did so in Loving v. Virginia. The decision links its 1948 decision in Perez to its decision today (Mildred Loving herself made the link too, although I would argue it's distinct... but that's for another day).
I know that what TPM folks will want to talk about is whether this is good or bad for the Democrats. But folks, I can't go there yet. Can we take a couple of hours to be deliriously happy on behalf of the 100,000 registered domestic partners in California and their kids, who now have full equality under the law, and the many others who will flock to California to marry and raise families? More context after the break.
Some national context: If this decision gets implemented, California will take its place after Massachusetts as the second American state with full marriage rights. Connecticut is up next; its top court could rule any day now. What we think of as civil unions exist in Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Oregon. (More on the national landscape here.)
Some California context: the state legislature has, more than once, passed a full marriage rights bill that was vetoed by the Governator, who said the issue should be decided by the courts. Now that it has been decided by the courts, because it's California, the issue will almost certainly go to the voters in a constitutional referendum. Although it's a state with very large socially conservative regions (for instance, it has some of the largest evangelical megachurches and the most numerous Mormon population outside of Utah), voters have been educated by several waves of these referenda and may very well uphold full marriage rights for same-sex couples. Knowing such a vote was coming, LGBT forces have been working on preparing the ground for this for several years now, in education campaigns that span a number of different voting blocs. (I wrote about that for the Prospect a few years ago, here.)
A tiny bit of world context: several countries have full marriage rights for same-sex couples, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, and Spain. Many other countries (including all those in Scandinavia and most of Western Europe) have what we would call "civil unions." Still more countries include states or provinces with "civil unions" (for instance, Australia, Mexico, and Uruguay all have provincial civil unions). I stopped keeping close track a couple of years ago so I can't give more details, but you can find the latest count if you hunt around at Freedom to Marry.
Points
May 15, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every 4 years.
Before a presidential election.
The news trots out videos of kissing lesbian brides,
and gay grooms.
Do you guys have a CLUE?
You are being EXPLOITED by the right wing.
They use these clips to "energize the base."
They are using you against yourselves!
So they can continue to keep you from having
rights!
Do the high visibility stuff BETWEEN elections!
May 15, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point 5
I am 5 blocks from SF City Hall and despite having received an email from the Mayor's office and a heads up from the Alice B. Toklas Demo Club it's effing 95 outside. Even my cat won't sleep with me it's so friggin hot
I've opted for gin and tonics
May 15, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations to gay couples!!!
As an at-home father in S.F., I've had the privilege to meet and know many gay parents, doing the same hard work of raising kids. Many of them adopt, and I have to say, some of these couples are true heros who knowingly adopt a child from abusive backgrounds, or with disabilities, etc. They take these children, who have more troubles and challenges than the ordinary child, and they give 'em the love and care and home that they need. There have been times I've been moved to tears by their stories. That these couples didn't have the same rights, weren't given the same respect and dignity as other married parents truly offended me to the core.
There's a lot to be said, and a lot of political wrangling yet to come, but for the moment I just want to say how proud I am of my city, my state, and I'm thrilled for the gay community. To cool off in the sweltering heat of the city today, I'll be downing a tall cool drink, and will toast this victory for liberty and equality.
Cheers!
May 15, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think LGBT reproduction + parenting will be seen as equivilent to heterosexual any time soon, if ever. All else being else being equal in regards to love, wealth, stability, nurturing, gender role models, etc; LGBT parenting is disadvantaged because both mothers and fathers matter. In fact, most gays and lesbians I know and meet in San Francisco even concede that pragmatic point.
The legislative efforts are being led by a very ideological activist base who see marriage as a Holy Grail of social acceptance, or perhaps just an issue to fight on. Very delusional and foolish imo. They will eventually force society into making distinctions, formally, that we'd be better off leaving until a time when the country is less ideological and more pragmatic, all around.
May 15, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember......
California voters have already voted TWICE to approve gay marriage.
So I don't think we have anything to fear!
A happy day!!!!
May 15, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the legislature twice passed a same-sex marriage law and Ahnult vetoed both.
Arnie says he will not support new proposition coming this November that would overrule the state Supreme Court, though.
May 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was in a meeting a volunteer training thing for Project Homeless Connect at the SF Dept of Health at 10
At 10:03 one of the participants got a text message
Kinda like where were you when Kennedy was shot
May 15, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No in fact Calfornia voters have only voted ONCE and that to approve the ban that the court overturned
May 15, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to quibble with you folks - but.......
The state legislators (who are elected by - remember - the VOTERS) have voted TWICE to approve gay marriage.
The governor vetoed the bill TWICE (not once).
He now says he will support gay marriage. But the voters (through their elected officials) have TWICE said 'OK' to same-sex marriage.
May 15, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then don't quibble
The Legislature isn't deciding the fate of the November ballot initiative
The only time the people of California voted on the issue they voted against gay marriage
End of argument
May 15, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
California’s 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 (or Prop 22) prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 4,618,673 votes versus 2,909,370 against. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down this law in a 4-3 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry.
May 15, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've been raising funds and building an organization for a couple of years now to take on the very constitutional amendment the Right Wing will have on the ballot this November.
I wouldn't want anyone to be misled into thinking this won't be a fight or that we're bound to win it
May 15, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think the odds are in favor of a ban, even in CA. This will be seen as the courts overturning the popular will, which I suspect will be enough to overcome resistance to modifying the constitution. Especially in CA, which is more liberal than some state, but which also has a long history of preference towards deciding controversial issues via amendments; and the difficulty of re-amending it later. Prop 13 on property taxes being a particularly onerous example.
So I think this effort was incredibly foolish tactically. This is likely to create another short term pander and marriage "holiday" with long term negative consequences. Another one step forward, two steps back. Should have stayed with civil unions.
Also, while EJ Graff would rather not discuss it, this will spark efforts nationwide to Constitutionally ban same-sex marriage, with many passing. That will be a huge burden on Democratic candidates, with about 80% of the country polling against SSM.
Another example of activism for radicalism sake promoting long term reactionary fallout.
May 15, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many LGBT activists are socially liberal Democrats, economically conservative Republicans + Libertarians. There's not much loyalty to party or a wider community generally.
Much of the LGBT community is very homogeneous and separate from the overall community, especially over the last couple decades.
So, here's the thing:
On one hand CA LGBT activists enjoy the fight almost as sport. "Winning" would be great, but they don't really fear consequences of losing because they already have domestic partnerships.
On the other hand, many LGBT activists are economically Republicans or Libertarians. So if their activism helps elect Republicans to slash social programs and lower taxes, they're good with that too.
May 15, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, my old friend kozmik! Glad to see you again!
Actually, the history is that many California LGBT activists were furious at Newsom for kicking off something they didn't want to have to organize for yet. (No one would tell me that for quotation, but trust me, there was some real fury.) But given that he did, and that the timing wasn't up to them, they've been preparing for the fight. And you're right, it will be very close.
As far as nationally: I will think about that another day...
May 15, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Canada, lots of LGBT activists I knew were pretty pissed at the couples who pushed the Halpern litigation forward in the 1990s, when most people thought the Supreme Court wasn't ready to embrace same-sex marriage. But the litigation itself, and the big wins in the various provincial courts of appeal, and the public conversation they evoked, changed the climate. Once people talked about it, and saw that the sky didn't fall as SSM was legalized province by province, public opinion swung in favor.
The fact that public opinion might not be in favor is no reason not to challenge injustice. Even the failures have value. For example, the CA domestic partnership statute (itself a victory compared to prior non-recognition of same-sex relationships) closed off the procreative rationales that conservative state courts had used, as well as the bizarre "hets need marriage more than gays because straight men are irresponsible about their children" argument used by the NY Court. Every time we have a public conversation about this, the idea of same-sex marriage gets more familiar, less outlandish. More reasonable people might be persuaded. (On the other hand, there's always the risk of a constitutional amendment. But in a liberal state like California, that risk is fairly low, knock wood.)
May 16, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Canada is far more liberal and homogeneous than the US so it's not a great political analogy despite geographic proximity.
It's one thing to argue for extending social services and social license, such as marriage, to gays when you already have universal healthcare. It's another thing to argue for universal healthcare when also debating gay marriage, racial divides, religious divides, economic ideology, and so on.
May 16, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
btw, it's not an "injustice." It's a matter of social policy. The arguments pro and con are pragmatic, not hyperbole.
Again, there are real differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples regarding child rearing. Parts of marriage are fundamentally an institution to promote child rearing. Therefore, it's simply false to say heterosexuals and homosexuals are equivilent in all regards to marriage.
May 16, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, OK, you're obviously a true believer in different-sex marriage, and I'm not gonna waste my breath arguing with you further about it.
However, I would like to correct the perception that Canada is somehow more "homogenous" than the US. One third of Canada's population is French-speaking, while two-thirds speak English (many in both groups speak other languages, as well). Nearly 20% of the population are immigrants (according to the 2006 census, of a total pop of 31.2 million, nearly 6.2 million Canadians were immigrants). I think Americans may perceive Canada to be "homogenous" because there are fewer black people and Latinos/as there than here. But the proportion of the population that is of Asian or aboriginal origin is higher.
Anyway, I don't think that has much to do with the popularity of SSM (although French Canadians are, on average, more socially liberal than English Canadians and Americans). Canadians (Spaniards and Dutch as well) are more liberal and less religious than Americans. I'd say you should look for your explanation there. Although it's hard to make that argument for South Africans, and they've adjusted to SSM, as well.
May 16, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, everybody knows all that. But claiming Canada isn't more homogeneous and unified, which affects issues like healthcare or gay marriage... you've got to be kidding. It's too goofy.
First off, Canada is about 95% light skinned and 85% of Western European descent.
Wealth distribution is far flatter.
Religious beliefs are more secular, pluralistic, and with less acrimony.
French and English are the most closely related of W European cultures and differences literally pale by comparison to the US. Even American Italian and Irish are more disparate, culturally and visibly.
Canada's main immigrant population is light skinned Asians who are highly assimilated in Vancouver especially, which is like the Asian community of San Francisco.
Canada doesn't have a history of race riots or civil war over slavery. Canada is bordered by the US, and Greenland if you want to count it. Not Mexico and Latin America, not the Carribean. Etc.
All of which matters, enormously, for building consensus on social policies.
May 17, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS, California by itself has a larger population and more cultural and economic diversity and division than Canada.
May 17, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of you to say. I know you prefer the audience at New College, but since its loss of accreditation and financial meltdown... treasure the videos for posterity.
Lol. Well that's one way to spin it.
LGBT activists were overjoyed with Newsom's pandering and have been loyal backers since. Which was Newsom's plan after all, to shore up support in the Castro after beating his main rival, Tom Ammiano, who is actually a genuine Progressive, but being gay and tied to the LGBT community was too much of a political liability in total.
Either the LGBT activists themselves realized it was folly, but lacked courage chose to pander rather than lead; OR, they were sincerely foolish in endorsing Newsom's pander as many lean Republican on economic issues anyways, so an economic conservative (for San Francisco) who panders to LGBT activism is perfect for them.
Any way you slice it, what's prominently known and self described as the LGBT movement is a mess today and becoming a liability to Democrats.
Many in the gay community who aren't part of the self proclaimed LGBT coalition of activists, are generally more pragmatic, less concerned with social validation or radicalism, and see the gay marriage legal activism as a bad idea. They also tend to be the most loyal Democratic and Progressive voters. But they mostly keep quiet.
Much of the LGBT legal movement is backed by well heeled gays and lesbians who are otherwise Republicans. Even the "B&T" in LGBT is a pander to a group that is largely ostracised in the L&G community.
None of which is new. It's the same route Dianne Fienstein took. Pandering social tokenism for the L&G activist community, many of whom are wealthy and connected DINKs, while also passing conservative economic policies they agree with. The difference is that in Fienstein's era in SF it was about equality in everyday life, ending discrimination and even violence. It wasn't about gay marriage at all.
I doubt it. I think the underlying demographics are pretty firm against gay marriage and forcing the issue is actually going to backfire.
You know as well as I do it's a disaster nationally.
May 16, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU MAYOR NEWSOM
http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper851/stills/4042e58ee89c9-19-1.jpg
May 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
More context
Newsom, a stalwart Clinton supporter (BOOOOOO), has been setting himself up to run for Governator - likely Dem opponents - Steve Westly. Jerry Brown (who as AG represented the State of CA in the case, subject of today's ruling)
May 15, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations to you all!
I wrote a TPM blog post in which I expressed some serious concerns about the political implications of the timing of this, but your post reminds me that we're talking about real families here who are deliriously happy and have finally getting recognition of their inherent rights.
So enjoy the celebration!
May 15, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that they used the equal-protection clause.
It will make it harder for the bigots to ram their favorite initative through, because they haven't written it so as to change that clause.
(We can ask them very politely if they also plan to make legal discrimination based on skin color, religion, and ethnic origin. Should make heads explode really well.)
May 15, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A question. The initiative in novemember to change the constitution to outlaw this, will it need simple majority vote or more than that to change the california constitution. I would hope that such changes wouldn't be as easy as majority rules.
May 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
CA state initiatives to modify the CA constitution require 8% of electorate's signatures and 50% approval. The forces of evil have an amendment lined up for the November ballot with 1M signatures already. If they reach the required 700k signatures (+/-), then there will be a ballot proposition to limit marriage to different sex couples.
The biggest uncertainty (AFAIK) is whether the initiative adequately addresses today's ruling's concerns re equal protection. (I'm not an attorney, so this sense is certainly second-hand!)
Don't get me started about the CA initiative process ...
May 15, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I attended the awesome wedding reception of a co-worker/friend back in February 2004 and that was a very heady time in SF.
This is bound to be bigger as it's statewide now.
It's not carved in stone (yet), and there will be a battle fighting to hold off the bigots this November, but it's time to pop open the bubbly once again.
(Not sure yet if November constitutional amendment proposition would retro-actively overrule marriages that happen between now and then, should people be scared into passing it. Hopefully not. It'd be great if at lease some of marriages bound to happen now could never, ever be turned back.)
May 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
O, scrumptious day! My daughter is a citizen after all!
May 15, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember the Massachusettes Supreme Court ruling legitimizing gay marriage......didn't that ruling come in an election year with Kerry running?
Wasn't that Court tilted toward Republicans?
I'm breathing polluted air, I lost my job to China, I have no health care, and my son's body is scattered all over Iraq....but things will be better if only we can put restrictions on gays.
May 15, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, those are the rubes Republicans turn out while running a corporate agenda. But it's not much different with the typical rube on the left.
May 19, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
EJ, I agree with you 99%. The 1% is that I think the "miscegenation" analogy is appropriate and compelling. (It's beautiful that Mildred Loving took a stand on same-sex marriage, too.)
It's a happy day in this great state.
And can I just thank you for pointing this out?
I thought I was the only one!
Now maybe it's because I live in a bubble of liberals and young people, but my sense is that the right-wingers of California can't generate the broad-based opposition it'd take to amend the constitution to prohibit SSM. If it's fair to extrapolate from the repeated defeat of referenda calling for mandatory parental-notification abortion laws, California voters are a lot more liberal than most Americans when it comes to their views about "family."
May 15, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is excellent news!
Glenn Greenwald rightly notes that any critique (or, similarly, praise) of the ruling should focus on substantive points of California law and precedent. So while I'm not qualified to speak to the merits of the decision itself, as a matter of policy I strongly concur with the outcome.
I hope this results in many new happy marriages.
May 15, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic and long overdue.
If only the federal government would live up to its equal protection obligations.
May 15, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have always been proud to be a Californian, but today... well I have never been prouder. Happy day to all!
May 15, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I applaud the ruling but please don't tell me that same-sex couples are now going to 'flock to California.' What with the hordes coming north for employment and the snowed-in coming west for the sunshine this state may just sink into the great Pacific. Addendum: if you come, bring money. Thank you, an LA resident.
May 15, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as one of those recent immigrants swamping your fair city -- I like it here. I think I'll stay. Sorry.
May 15, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is indeed a happy day for California. And not only for those who will finally be able to wed their loved ones, but for those of us who have long been able to wed ours.
When rights are denied to any member of our society, they are diminished for all members of our society.
May 15, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was and am very pleased with the ruling conceptually. But on reading the decision, I'm not sure that the analysis holds up. If we assume that the statement "Domestic partnerships and marriages have the same legal standing,
granting to both heterosexual and homosexual couples a societal recognition of
their lifelong commitment" is true, then how can a finding be made for the plaintiffs on equal protection grounds?
May 15, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When I dare to be powerful--to use my strength in the service of my vision--then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid"--Audre Lorde
May 15, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
How magical! :rolleyes:
May 16, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of notes. I am not yet clear through the lenghty opinion but I think the Court has struck quite a blow for freedom and equality.
Relative to the California Constitution's Privacy Guarantee:
"In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.
Slip Opinion at 66
and,
"Thus, just as this court recognized in Perez that it was not constitutionally permissible to continue to treat racial or ethnic minorities as inferior (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at pp. 720- 727), and in Sail’er Inn that it was not constitutionally acceptable to continue to treat women as less capable than and unequal to men (Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d at pp. 17-20 & fn. 15), we now similarly recognize that an ndividual’s homosexual orientation is not a constitutionally legitimate basis for withholding or restricting the individual’s legal rights.
In light of this recognition, sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals the same basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty (including the right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and sanctioned family) that the California Constitution affords to heterosexual individuals. The privacy and due process provisions of our state Constitution — in declaring that “[a]ll people . . . have [the] inalienable right[] [of] privacy” (art. I, § 1) and that no person may be deprived of “liberty” without due process of law (art. I, § 7) — do not purport to reserve to persons of a particular sexual orientation the substantive protection afforded by those provisions."
Slip Opinion at 69.
Pretty powerful words. But wait, there's more.
In addressing the "Domestic Partnership is the same as marriage so what's the harm?" argument:
"Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes — by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership — pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry. As observed by the City at oral argument, this court’s conclusion in Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, that the statutory provision barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional, undoubtedly would have been the same even if alternative nomenclature, such as “transracial union,” had been made available to interracial couples.
Accordingly, although we agree with the Attorney General that the provisions of the Domestic Partner Act afford same-sex couples most of the substantive attributes to which they are constitutionally entitled under the state constitutional right to marry, we conclude that the current statutory assignment of different designations to the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples and of same-sex couples properly must be viewed as potentially impinging upon the state constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry."
Slip Opinion at 81 – 82.
Only then does the Court go on to the Equal Protection argument:
"The current statutory assignment of different names for the official family relationships of opposite-sex couples on the one hand, and of same-sex couples on the other, raises constitutional concerns not only in the context of the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause."
Slip Opinion at 82.
My own humble opinion is that the Court did a pretty good job here. It is also worth noting that since the Court relied only on the California Constitution there is no available appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in this particular case.
People are people, rights are rights. Happy day!
May 15, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this is it's going to force society to make distinctions in regards to equality.
For example, much of the language of "equality" has historically dealt with race. When courts talk about "equality" they're usually talking about the injustice of discrimination on wholly cosmetic issues such as skin color and ethnic background. We now know that "race" doesn't exist genetically so it was never a reasonable basis for discrimination. That was intuited by fair minded people centuries ago.
However, on homosexuality in regards to sexual procreation and parenting, there most certainly is a significant difference. There is a big difference between a gay married couple parenting and a straight couple parenting, both empirically and intuitively.
We're now culturally leaning towards the ideology of "equality" which is generally a good thing. But, this issue has the possibility of greatly eroding that by creating a situation where "equality" language will have to be qualified which is imo a bad idea all around, at this time.
May 15, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks six13.
The problem is that dignity, respect and stature are not rights that can be legally enforced - they are societal judgements. To the extent that a "domestic partnership" is not afforded the same dignity, respect and stature as a marriage - regardless of the fact that both labels are afforded equal rights under the law - this is a societal problem, not a legal one.
One might argue that women are not afforded the same dignity, respect and stature as men in the workplace in today's society, despite the fact that women are afforded the same legal rights in the workplace as men. Insisting that all people be called "men" in the workplace would seem to not only acknowledge and accept the alleged disparity in dignity, respect and stature, but would futher serve to denigrate the distinct but equal reality and force of "women."
It seems that if the ultimate goal is for same-sex committed couples to be afforded the same dignity, respect and stature as heterosexual committed couples, and if "domestic partnership" is recognized as a committed same-sex relationship and "marriage" is recognized as a committed heterosexual relationship, both with equal rights under the law, then forcing society to apply the label of "marriage" to same-sex commited relationships ultimately does not serve this goal, and fails to address the underlying societal problem.
May 15, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simplify. Apartheid = separate but equal (but not really). Civil Unions for gays = separate but equal (but not really). Same thing.
Creating a separate class of 'unions' for different kinds of couples creates a legal acceptance that somehow a gay union is different and therefore not the same (not equal) to a hetero union. It also then reinforces the societal bias, because, heck, the law says so. In addition, separate classes of unions leaves the door always open to interpreting the law differently for each group, even if it starts off the same.
Now, personally, I think governments should get out of the marriage business altogether. Governments should perform the function of legally binding a couple, be it gay or straight, married or not. Marriage should be a religious rite. Some churches will do it, and some won't, and that's OK because that's their prerogative - separation of church and state. To me, that's the simple solution. And no government can refuse to let a church marry a couple because it would be unconstitutional - no government can support or suppress any religious group, and refusing to allow a church to marry gay couples would be just that.
May 15, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Now, personally, I think governments should get out of the marriage business altogether."
Should government also get out of the public school business and all social programs deemed good for common interests, democratically, by the people and culture? Or just those you don't personally like because they offend your identity politics?
That imo is typical of much of the LGBT activism and why I went from supporting gay marriage to rethinking it and deciding against it, preferring civil unions instead.
There is a lot of bumper sticker mentality and false equivalence between race and sexual orientation, and a lot of "if we can't have it, nobody should" mentality among the LGBT community.
"Race" isn't real and never was. This is now understood empirically, genetically, and culturally. There are real differences between gay parents and hetero parents and marriage is an institution intertwined with promoting child rearing.
May 15, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik. That is so untrue. The LG litigants who argued for equal marriage absolutely REJECTED the argument you attribute to "LGBT". The challengers want access to marriage -- not to take it away from straights. When one of the judges asked the challengers' lawyer whether California could solve the equal-protection problem by getting rid of marriage altogether, and calling everything a "domestic partnership" instead, she unequivocally rejected it. She said something along the lines of, "We do not want marriage to be taken away from heterosexual couples. We want it to be extended to us." Her whole theme was (and I'm paraphrasing), "Names are important. Marriage is important. It speaks to the dignity and respect that the government accords to our relationships." They want to be married, not in a "registered domestic partnership."
I've heard the occasional libertarian advocate that govt get out of the marriage business altogether (something that would never happen, because most straight couples want to be "married" in the eyes of government, too). I've heard many anti-SSM advocates claim that LGBT want to end marriage between straights. But that is not what the challengers asked for, or want. They litigated this all the way to the Supreme Court because RDPs aren't enough: the challengers want to be "married." The don't seek to replace marriage with domestic partnerships. The pitch that LGBT want is to take marriage away from straights is an anti-SSM talking point. But it is completely false. Don't fall for it.
May 16, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, when arguing for marriage. However, many including DaddyD right upthread, and many L&G I know, argue marriage as we know it should itself be abolished. It's very common, especially in the communities such as SF which drive LGBT activism.
And you just equivocated sexual orientation to race up thread. Which is another bumper sticker fallacy and outright magical thinking.
There are real and meaningful differences between the genders and sexual orientation in regards to parenting, biology, psychology, and consequent life experiences.
"Race" doesn't exist biologically except on a level of cosmetic, recent, and highly plastic adaption.
A mixed hetero married couple is still a man and woman who happen to have different cosmetic features and perhaps ethnic background. They're biologically capable of producing a baby carrying both their DNA and capable of offering that child a complete set of role models.
It's not at all equivilent to a gay or lesbian couple.
May 16, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
koznik:
"A mixed hetero married couple is still a man and woman who happen to have different cosmetic features and perhaps ethnic background. They're biologically capable of producing a baby carrying both their DNA and capable of offering that child a complete set of role models.
It's not at all equivilent to a gay or lesbian couple."
So, by your logic:
1. All gay couples who have children through in vitro fertilization are somehow excluded from being role models?
2. Heterosexual couples where one or both are infertile cannot marry, since they cannot reproduce.
3. Marriage should be denied to all women who have gone through menopause (since they cannot reproduce either).
4. Infertile men cannot marry, for the same reason.
5. All those who marry but have no desire or thought of reproducing are to be barred from the institution.
I suggest you rethink some of your positions. They are so easily demolished. Marriage is NOT dependent upon reproduction or genetic passing on of DNA. If it were dependent upon that, many - if not most - marriages today would have to be dissolved, since the 'nuclear family' is no longer the majority family structure in this country.
May 16, 2008 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those are straw men arguments and rather silly non sequiturs. You're making rather sloppy leaps from the specific to the general, and inappropriately mixing practical arguments with absolute ones.
Are you arguing there is no difference between a mother and father on one hand, and a gay couple or lesbian couple on the other? Or that marriage has nothing to do with facilitating child rearing? On what basis other than magical thinking?
I said gender and sexual orientation aren't equivilent to "race" because the former are biologically real and significant, while the latter is cosmetic and not relevant in regards to reproduction. So "equality" arguments for gay marriage based in civil rights, race and gender, are false.
I didn't say that marriage necessitates reproduction absolutely. It is however a consideration for it and generally encourages it, for the public good. It's a practical policy, not an absolute one.
As analogy, it's not a requirement someone be smart or graduate to attend a public school. But as a matter of policy it's considered to be a public good to facilitate schooling. In fact, some form of accredited education is required even if parents would choose otherwise. It's considered a right of the child, and for practical benefit of society, that parents can't deny for selfish reasons, though some might like to.
Similarly, marriage facilitates families among other goals. And while social policies or culture can't require a participatory biological mother and father, due to circumstances beyond control, it's always been considered preferable and encouraged relative to single parenting, adoption, aunts and uncles, etc. Support for biological mothers and fathers is universal with the exception of highly ideological counter culture movements, including the LGBT marriage activists, and some misandrist feminists who argued against fathers during the 60's.
Attempting to conflate gay and lesbian adoption with heterosexual adoption is another false equivalence. People generally agree qualified parents, heterosexual or homosexual, are better than orphanages. Which is why I support gay and lesbian adoption as well as civil unions.
However, that doesn't make them equivilent. Two things may accomplish many of the same goals and still be significantly different.
A heterosexual couple adopting should be given preference, all else being equal, for the benefit of the child. As a practical matter it's fair to differentiate between hetero marriages and homosexual civil unions.
The bottom line is that gays and lesbians hope that by getting married they'll become equivilent to heterosexual married couples in all regards including social preference. That is simply a delusion. There will still be real distinctions. All it would accomplish is forcing society to carve out specifically and explicitly all the ways in which gay and lesbian marriage are not equivilent, and cause a backlash against LGBT activism.
May 16, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik:
All the equivocation and deflection in the world cannot rescue your main argument.
Since you readily admit that reproduction is NOT necessary to recognition of marriage - and that there are other non-family justifications for marriage - then your entire argument fails - and it fails completely.
So long as heterosexual couples may marry without having to answer to society for failing to reproduce or raise children or pass on their DNA - then so may homosexual couples.
And there is no legal, moral, or social justification you can raise to alter that fact.
May 16, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say I am on the same page here.
May 16, 2008 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are some substantive rights that go with the decision(e.g., certain federal benefits accorded to legal marriages but not to domestic unions, recognition in other states).
But you are right about the underlying problem. Alas, there is little the Court can do about that. It can, and has however, removed the state sanction of the underlying societal problem. A small step perhaps, but one I think that must be taken.
Brown v. Bd. of Education did not make people immediately embrace each other regardless of race. It did however remove one important institutional sanction of racial segregation.
As you say, the societal problem remains. No mere name change is going to fix that. However, today's decision says the state cannot sanction the result of that societal problem. Further, as have other similar civil rights decisions, the decision makes available certain rememdies for denial of the rights that might not have otherwise been available.
As Lao-tzu said, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." Without the first step, there can be no journey. Hopefully today was one step.
May 15, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, however, conservative activists will have a talking point as they work to rally their supporters.
May 15, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mazel Tov!
One quibble, though: does this mean your domestic partnerships is now invalid, and that you'll have to get another marriage?
May 15, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, domestic partnerships (which weren't limited to same-sex couples, by the way) don't automatically turn into marriage. What this decision means is that same-sex couples now have the same options as different-sex couples: they can choose to get married, or enter into a "domestic partnership", or not.
May 15, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...
Can straight couples also enter into partnerships? If so, it's possible, though unlikely, that they will serve as a precursor to marriage among Californian couples, like living together.
And I just spotted the answer to my question, but now I'm too lazy to remake the syntax of the following statement.
May 15, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, actually, I was wrong. I was assuming that because other jurisdictions allow different-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships, that California did, too. Can ya tell I've only been told about the decision, but not yet read it? [wipes egg off face]
According to Family Code s.299, you have to be either a same-sex couple, or a different-sex couple over 62 years old (presumably this is trying to work out some conflict with Social Security). Thanks for asking a question that got me to check my facts. I will now shut up on the facts of this case until I read it :/
May 15, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT NEWS!!! It is a huge victory for the gay and lesbian community...and one that is long, long overdue.
But even so it is a bigger victory for America as a whole. Any time the rights of any group of Americans are protected all of our rights are strengthened.
A small, but very significant, step forward in the long road was taken today. Progress can be frustratingly slow at times but progress is being made.
May 15, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
koznik:
"A mixed hetero married couple is still a man and woman who happen to have different cosmetic features and perhaps ethnic background. They're biologically capable of producing a baby carrying both their DNA and capable of offering that child a complete set of role models.
It's not at all equivilent to a gay or lesbian couple."
So, by your logic:
1. All gay couples who have children through in vitro fertilization are somehow excluded from being role models?
2. Heterosexual couples where one or both are infertile cannot marry, since they cannot reproduce.
3. Marriage should be denied to all women who have gone through menopause (since they cannot reproduce either).
4. Infertile men cannot marry, for the same reason.
5. All those who marry but have no desire or thought of reproducing are to be barred from the institution.
I suggest you rethink some of your positions. They are so easily demolished. Marriage is NOT dependent upon reproduction or genetic passing on of DNA. If it were dependent upon that, many - if not most - marriages today would have to be dissolved, since the 'nuclear family' is no longer the majority family structure in this country.
May 16, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is really sad. This issue always gets stirred up right in time for the election season. It's guaranteed to increase Republican voter turnout, which certainly hurts the LBG community over the long term, and you couldn't care less. You're being played for complete suckers by the Republicans, but it just doesn't matter to you.
Whatever. Be deliriously happy about being a full citizen. It's all about you.
May 16, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is. We can always say that we'll have better chances later on, but at some point we should try to actually get it, or we'll wait it away.
It's time to toss the dice.
May 16, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
There will be some backlash whenever progress like this is made. Yes, at the margins, this (or, more precisely, the ballot initiative to amend the California Constitution) will bring out more GOP inclined voters this fall. But politics isn't a sport, where you root for your team to win above all. What matters are the policies and laws implemented by those we elect. Remember that the whole point of winning elections is to have a positive effect on public policy and life. Getting elected should be a means to an end, not the end in itself.
Decisions like this, which make marriage possible for a large number of people, is why politics matters. So even if there's a little backlash, this is real progress. The outcome should be applauded as unequivocally good news.
May 16, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The only time the people of California voted on the issue they voted against gay marriage
Once upon a time voters voted in favor of Jim Crow laws, miscegenation laws, even slavery. So I guess that should have ended the argument too.
May 18, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Also, while EJ Graff would rather not discuss it, this will spark efforts nationwide to Constitutionally ban same-sex marriage, with many passing.
A large number of states have already gone that route so there's not much mileage left in sticking state bans on the ballot (and probably not enough time to do so before November). Nationally, the FMA is dead in the water. AND Even a Congress wholly dominated by the GOP couldn't jump start a federal FMA despite the Massachusetts decision (which was far more ground-breaking back then).
May 18, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Also, while EJ Graff would rather not discuss it, this will spark efforts nationwide to Constitutionally ban same-sex marriage, with many passing.
IMO, not at all. "Civil union" is simply another term for marriage, albeit marriage shorn of its religious connotations (and of course there are churches that will perform same sex marriages already so that point really doesn't matter). Calling gay marriage a "civil union" is no different than calling marriage "boda" in Spanish. Different term for the same thing, unless you want to insist that the laws need to also include the religious stuff too.
May 18, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
JonF311, that's a lot of nonsense. You contradict yourself several times incoherently. Thems some random neurons you got there.
You start by saying they're the same, and end by saying they're very importantly different. You conflate ethnicity and culture with genetic "race" which is just ignorant. You entirely miss the point that the purpose of a wedge issue is not to win or lose, but just to perpetually distract and divide people.
May 19, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: I said gender and sexual orientation aren't equivilent to "race" because the former are biologically real and significant, while the latter is cosmetic and not relevant in regards to reproduction.
Race may not be biologically "real" but it is a cultural reality and can't be dismissed as meaningless. Africa is not and was not Europe; nor was yeh experience of African Americans in this country identical to that of European Americans. IMO, culture is more significant than biology anyway. For example, biology gives us the abvility to speak a language, but its culture that gives us a specific language with all the baggage that comes along.
May 18, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: There are some substantive rights that go with the decision(e.g., certain federal benefits accorded to legal marriages but not to domestic unions, recognition in other states).
Gay marriage at the state level brings no benefits at the federal level at all-- or in other states unless those states choose to grant them. In that regard "marriage" and "civil union" are in no way different.
May 18, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink