We're Already Married
Four years ago, when Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses for same sex marriages, I was still a political columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle. I rushed down to City Hall to bear witness to the historic events of those days. At the time, I thought Gavin Newsom would be remembered for his bold and courageous initiative. Some said to me, "But it's not a good time." I responded, "It's never a good time to deny others the rights you already have."
Already, there are those who are preparing for a referendum for the November ballot that would ban same sex marriages in the California Constitution. But before we lose the joyous celebration of an expanded democracy, I'd like to recall what happened four years ago. Here, from 2004, is what I witnessed--one of the most joyous historic events in my life.
WHO ARE all the gay and lesbian couples streaming into San Francisco's City Hall to get married? What hopes and dreams did they bring to these sudden and unexpected marriage ceremonies?
Last Friday, I talked with some of the these couples who, in defiance of state law, married in San Francisco. Even though their marriage licenses may be judged invalid by the courts, they came because they wanted to participate in this historic event and to have, even temporarily, the same rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples.
Some of the women, dressed in stunning white gowns, juggled babies and bouquets. Some of the men, dressed in elegant tuxedos, sported a carnation in their lapels and cradled babies, while friends held their paperwork. One man pushed his partner in a wheelchair, a broad smile spreading across his face.
Beaming faces spread an intoxicating sense of joy throughout the building. As couples looked into each other's eyes, arms wrapped around each other, their friends took snapshots and the national media documented the occasion for the evening news. I chatted with one veteran cameraman who was overwhelmed by the scene and, much to his surprise, found himself blinking back tears.
Jennifer Shifflet, 31, and Kati Keyser, 29, both graduate students, live in Berkeley and have been together for eight years. The day before, Jennifer had telephoned Kati at work and said, "Let's do it tomorrow; it's such a historic event." Neither one had a chance to tell their parents of their plan.
But their parents wouldn't be surprised. With pride, they showed me pictures of the family members and friends who gathered around them at their commitment ceremony. During that event, they had expressed their gratitude to all the earlier activists who had struggled for gay rights. Kati said they had come "to support this historic event."
What do they imagine might change, now that they are married? "I won't have to call her my partner or girlfriend at a doctor's office or a hospital," said Jennifer. "She's now my spouse."
"We want to have children,'' said Kati. "Someday I can call a child-care center or a school and say that my spouse will be picking up our child. We'll be viewed as a valid family."
"It's an honor to be part of this. I'm thrilled," said Jennifer. "But the truth is, we had already made this commitment and felt married."
Randa Johnson and Adreanna Riles, both social workers in their late 30s, jointly own a house in Felton. They also felt that they had already married. Still, the day before they traveled to the steps of San Francisco's City Hall, they had asked each other: "Should we wait? No! We've got to be a part of it."
They too, have been together for eight years, but, as Adreanna put it, "I never imagined that we'd be able to marry in my lifetime." Draped in the white dresses they had worn at their commitment ceremony four years ago, they both felt they were "renewing" vows.
Why, then did they want to wed? Aside from the possibility of getting health and retirement benefits reserved for spouses, they said that their religious friends would regard their relationship as more legitimate now that they are married. They also want to have children and feel that they and their children will be viewed as a more legitimate family by teachers and others in their community.
Glowing with happiness, the two women looked like -- and spoke like -- any other married couple who deeply love and respect each other.
There may have been couples who had just met, were swept up in the heady passion of a new romance, and decided to rush down to City Hall to get married.
But that's not what I saw. I met couples who already had made a spiritual commitment to each other and whose love had been tested by time and travail. For them, a marriage license meant greater social legitimacy and fewer logical and legal hassles.
That's how Andy Anderson, 42, and Marcus Wonacott, 49, viewed it. Longtime residents of San Francisco, the men had already shared 16 years of their lives. They, too, already felt they had wed.
As they approached the steps to City Hall, a friend greeted them and pinned roses on their suit jackets. Their faces beamed as they held hands. "We're really very grateful to Mayor Gavin Newsom," said Andy. This really makes a statement. He deserves so much credit for being so bold and daring."
"It a historic milestone," said Marcus. "We're part of history and we know it."
Then, with joyful smiles, they eagerly entered City Hall to renew vows they had made eight years ago, at their commitment ceremony.
What happened in Massachusetts, in terms of public opinion, is what's gonna happen in California ... slowly but surely, we're gonna win this one.
By the way, the LDS Church has already come out against this ruling and I'm suggesting they'd be a good soft target for directing dissenting views ...
http://mormontimes.com/WC_headquarters.php?id=1105
The membership of the LDS Church is more divided on this issue than the leadership would have the outside world believe, and considering the church's sizable political clout in CA, well, it's worth dropping them a note to let them know they're not going to be able fund opposition to this and get away with doing so under the radar this time around like they did with Prop 22.
May 16, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, if you want, here is the number for the
1)California Supreme Court: (415) 865-7000 or
2)Mayor Gavin Newsom: (415) 554-6141
Call them and thank/give your support because you know there will be people on the other side too.
May 16, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comparing Mass, one of the smallest and most liberal states, to CA the largest and most diverse state, is a huge stretch. They're not the same historically, geographically, or demographically.
May 16, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Currently, there aren't any really big differences between domestic partnerships and marriage in California but the recent supreme court case wasn't about equivalence; it was about ending the discrimination implicit in having separate legislation governing same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
To my thinking couples in a domestic partnership were already married but I agree that part of the dignity and respect that is their due comes from being able to legally call it a marriage.
May 16, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's all about first class vs second class citizenship for gay people.
May 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all about bumper stickers?
May 16, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the IRS and Social Security administration says people are "married" then they will be married, until then this is still only political theater.
What this means is that this needs to be fixed at the national level, hoping to do an end run around congress at the state level just isn't good enough.
The only way to archive this is by really getting an understanding of what is troubling those who oppose same sex marriage. The reasons they give are not the real ones, for example quoting the Bible. The Bible has stories of polygamy, but most Christians don't regard this as a valid form of marriage. So the selective use of religious doctrine is just a cover for some deeper concern.
Perhaps there is a fear that the patriarchal arrangement of much of society will be weakened. Men are already feeling threatened by the rise of women in the workforce, their ability to be financially independent and the sexual equality that follows.
Many women may also be fearful since they are now expected to fend for themselves instead of being Beaver Cleaver's mom and having dad provide. This seems to be the motivation behind many of the religious groups which keep women in the kitchen.
For a decade the two groups have been talking past each other, one sees marriage choices as a fundamental civil liberty, and the other sees it as a threat. Without understanding what this perceived threat is, progress will remain slow.
May 16, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much of the fear is simply homophobia, fear of the strange, fear of some people's own latent orientation, and/or all of the above.
The excuses/rationales are just cover for these. Really has less to do with actual marriage issue for the fearful. People just don't want to acknowledge that there are others who don't fit their pre-conceived normative standards.
The less it is strange and unknown, the more comfortable people feel in "coming out," the less taboo LGTBi will become and then marriage will be no more big of a deal across the country than interracial marriages today.
May 16, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calling fear homophobia is only giving it a label, it doesn't really explain anything. Neither does saying "fear of the strange". Some people are afraid and others are not, there has to be a reason.
Homophobia is especially problematic since being a homosexual is not a readily apparent characteristic (like being a member of some minority group might be). Unless one does something explicitly to reveal their preference one can't tell. In fact this was the norm until 30 years ago.
It would appear that homophobia is rooted in something deeper and discovering what this is should be useful. As I suggested this might have something to do with threats to a patriarchal social structure, but it would be nice to see some actual studies.
The way to battle ignorance is through knowledge.
May 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but that's just PC blather.
I grew up in the Castro and we had many gay and lesbian friends and neighbors. There's nothing strange about that to me. If anything, I feel weird in places that aren't as mixed (or hilly.)
I supported gay marriage for years out of PC'ness and bought into the equality rhetoric.
But when you actually look at the issues and the complexities, it's not good enough to just be PC about it. There are real differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples in regards to families and child rearing. Marriage is part of that and can't really be decoupled. So no, there's not an equivalence. Gay activists know that, which is why they're attempting to force a false equivalence via marriage, a sort of Holy Grail delusion.
And when you study the history of gay activism, and it's ties to a lot of Republican bankers and finance, it's not nearly as clean and idealistic as some naive hippies seem to think.
A lot of wealthy gays benefit by these wedge issues, playing both sides.
Gay activism has all these otherwise hyper conservative patrons upstream. For example, San Francisco gay activism, litigation, and money comes largely from banking and real estate. These are not liberals or Progressives in any sense.
There's a lot of Lynn Cheneys and closeted Republicans out there.
May 16, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm still living 5 blocks from Ground Zero.
Thanks Ruth
Paul Kiel marry me
A right without a remedy is worthless
May 16, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of my favorite pieces of writing on the subject ...
http://www.umoutlaws.org/2007/02/you-know-everything-about-same-sex.html
May 16, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I remember it well. Barack Obama refused to be photographed shaking Gavin Newsom's hand at a fundraiser organized by Willie Brown. So, this court ruling is probably sweet for Newsom on many levels. It shows Newsome was on the moral and the legal high ground; and it shows Obama, a Constitutional lawyer, was cowardly.
Obama Snub Still Rankles Newsom
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL
May 16, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see, you wanna gossip ...
http://wonkette.com/politics/political-liabilities/newsom-a-little-too-hot-to-handle-332036.php
May 16, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having worked in the field for Gavin Newsom in 2003 and 2007 and for Obama in February, this is an Obama town and yesterday's ruling doesn't change a thing as far as Newsom's Obama problem goes
He needs a do-over if he expects a viable campaign for Governator
May 16, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So glad to have an important wedge issue on the ballot this November. The hillbillies need to be inspired to get out and vote. This oughta do it.
May 16, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Civil rights in the 60s stirred up the same folks, but the changes still had to come.
One in every 10 people in the US lives in California , so this will help greatly to normalize gay marriage in the eyes of the nation.
May 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we really had our national debate and went through 90% of the backlash in 2004.
I'm in Massachusetts now, and there are two phases of backlash. One is about the concept of SSM, and that is the politically greater one- and California has had four years of getting used to it. The second phase is the present one- when newspapers have the pictures of smiling SS couples in tuxedos waving their marriage licenses. But the backlash to that is smaller and is really a matter of a few weeks. I don't think it will last 3 months.
It would be nice if a thread here didn't degenerate into the usual wishful projections on Presidential candidates, btw. The Great Disappointment that Obama is rather more of an instinctual centrist than pretended can be denied and put off, but it can't ultimately be avoided.
May 16, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
CA doesn't have Hillbillies. We have Okies
May 16, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
One out of every 10 people is gay, they might not live the lifestyle, but statistically, those are the scientific facts.
This is a GREAT thing for CA, and a step in the right direction. Politics should be separate from morality issues. No one ever wins those fights. The Supreme Court in CA, thank you for your fairness in this ruling.
And thanks, though I don't usually agree with him, to Arnie for stating he does not think we should have an amendment added to the state constitution over this issue.
Finally, Mayor Newsom, great job. You make me proud to be a Californian.
May 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your "facts" are BS. Typical though.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're quoting a lot of bogus research from Kinsey which is throughly discredited. Kinsey's studies on homosexuality were conducted disproportionately on prison inmates, with any sexual activity being considered evidence of latent homosexuality. Kinsey was a crank. He was bi-sexual and projected himself into all of his work.
Commonly accepted statistics, including those supported by gay and lesbian advocacy groups, state that between 1-3% of the population is gay or bisexual.
You just flagged yourself as a rather uninformed and naive person probably going through a phase of identity politics where you absorb and regurgitate "facts" uncritically. I suggest you grow up and start taking issues seriously.
May 16, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik honey you are the most full of your own shit person I have ever run into online. Everything is some big PC front for rich gays getting richer off controversy? WTF? You need to separate your own need to be a complete negative nancy from reality before you fall off the bridge with your "I was there ... everyone is a greedy liar" bullshit. Put down the keyboard and call a qualified therapist asap.
May 17, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think the Republicans are the only ones who've figured out how to press people's buttons and turn out the rubes on wedge issues while passing a corporate agenda? Are you really that clueless?
Where do you think the money comes from for the political campaigns, the foundations and litigation? In both parties. It's not the grass roots.
All of these foundations, community centers, legal funds, etc are funded by a small number of hyper wealthy donors and trustees who sit on the boards of finance, developers, energy, telecom, MSM, etc. National and transnational conglomerates, none of whom give a damn about gay marriage, gun control, or whatever.
Their formula is very simple: pander to provincial cultural wedge issues, whatever they may be, while passing a pro-corporate agenda. May as well be feng shui and bribes to do business in China.
Some will fund Evangelicals in the South. Some fund gay issues or gun control or whatever in the coastal areas. Some fund gun rights in rural areas. Some fund all of the above. But they all fund a common corporate agenda.
Why do you think Clinton passed NAFTA and deregulated telecoms and media consolidation, deregulated banking, and so on, with bipartisan support? Just as both Bush's have, and Reagan did. Why do you think both Dems and Reps line up together, quietly, and fast track every major corporate give away, but love to perpetually distract voters with cultural wedge issues that are never resolved.
May 18, 2008 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what this excerpt shows is that Obama was not 'refusing' to be photographed shaking hands with the pro same-sex marriage mayor, rather he would 'really appreciate' not having to. I'm not saying that's a good difference, that's still not cool. But, it's not as they say, black and white.
Whether it was political cowardess or a battle to be saved for another day forgets about the stage that had to be set before the American Civil Rights movement in the 60's.
There were many people who were thought of as possible examples to be held up in the Civil Rights Movement, but they waited for Rosa Parks because she was seen as a safe one.
Now, those examples in for the same-sex marriage movements have come along repeatedly so I can't excuse this. But, with only California and Massachusetts having this right now, and many country's having same-sex marriage bans in their state constitutions, we can't completely denounce the leaders that do somewhat support those ideas. We just have to identify that they need to push the fight further.
May 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that was for BMC. Forgot to hit reply.
May 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Newsom is a pandering jerk, a sleaze ball, a complete phony, and didn't vote for him. He's got this young GF now and was screwing his deputy cheif's wife too. What's up with that?
He was always a weasel. He's always juked left publicly while moving right behind the scenes. He certainly is in the Feinstein mold. All pandering, all the time. No thanks.
Tom Ammiano was a real Progressive and i wish he was mayor. But unfortunalty being not only gay, but flamboyantly gay, and Progressive, really killed him in the conservative districts. I think he also would have had more sense than to screw the gay community on this ill conceived marriage pander.
Matt Gonzalez was also a progressive, even if he is a tool. I think the board of supervisors would have prevented him from doing anything too stupid, and he wouldn't be Nader's running mate now. :rolleyes:
Jeebus SF politics are FUBARed.
May 16, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Ruth! My partner of twenty five years and I remember that day as one of the most memorable and joyous of our lives. We were married in City Hall on Valentine's Day. We remember your perfect response to "it's never a good time". And to this day we still refer to Mayor Gavin Newsom as "Saint Gavin".
The morning after we married I stood at our living room window overlooking our neighborhood and I was struck by something very unexpected. All the houses looked different. They literally looked different to me. It took a moment to realize what I was experiencing. Our relationship was now on a par with the people inhabiting all those homes. We were equal.
May 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
as a twice-divorced (straight) woman, I'm not sure why gays and lesbians are so "delirious with joy" at the prospect of being married, but hey, if you want it, go for it!
the idea that somehow gay marriage is going to hurt "traditional" marriage is a strange one. seems to me that promoting ANY stable, loving relationship is a good thing. I mean, really: who's a better role model for the kids, Ellen DeGeneris or Britney Spears?
my hope however is that this doesn't become a wedge issue in the presidential election. Obama's weenie-ness in re: being photographed with Gavin Newsom notwithstanding, let's not let the Rethugs paint this as leading to "permission to marry a goat" and the other ridiculous things they've said in the past.
May 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most aren't. I grew up in the Castro and most gays and lesbians there have always been of the opinion that "marriage" is for the "breeders." There isn't a widespread urge to get married now either.
It's a big con.
It's pushed by a minority of very affluent and otherwise Republican gays and lesbians who are very fond of litigating and have the money to do so. There's a lot of gay bankers, real estate tycoons, and so on in the upper Castro, Nob Hill, Marin and elsewhere. It's their money and influence funding these efforts.
They're playing both sides. Social liberal pandering and economic conservatism. Creating these wedge issues serves both interests.
To understand the history of gay activism in San Francisco it's important to look at Dianne Feinstein as an example of one of the first pols to leverage the wealthy gay, socially liberal, economically conservative constituancy.
She was on point during the Harvey Milk assassination which frankly gave her a lot of press to make speeches and endeared her to rank and file gay voters. She's also one of the wealthiest Senators, connected to banking, real estate, and an economic conservative in many ways. She was a major proponent of Prop 13. Her present husband is a billionaire banker who does a lot of business with China and in no-bid defense contracting on which boards Feinstein sits. She's a FP hawk and AIPAC member, and is known for pandering to social liberalism on token gun control, against violent video games, and other such fluff. Meanwhile, she's a consistent vote for banking and finance, global trade, etc.
She's beloved by wealthy gays in the Bay Area because she perfectly embodies their politics: token social liberalism for pandering and as wedge issues, while passing economics that favor the hyper wealthy.
May 16, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I happily invite you to come to my boring quiet suburb outside Boston with 25+ ssm couples with children in the public school system.
No, there's no gay ghetto out here. It's almost dreary in the level of assimilation. In Boston gay nightclubs and bars are shutting down- the younger generation of gay people is mostly doing stuff like raising families and pursuing careers.
I've heard so much about San Francisco Liberals. In real life I've mostly met resentful downwardly mobile people from there- with boilerplate Leftist attitudes ("progressive"), certain kinds of snobbery and elitisms, sadly moderate attitudes about social issues, and a predeliction towards drug use. That's definitely Obama demographics.
May 17, 2008 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really don't know what you're talking about. I started to write a post correcting you but it would have taken too long.
btw, if you're in Boston and a gay marriage advocate, why is your nick "San Pasqual, CA" which is a conservative rural/suburban farming region outside San Diego, and Republican/Bush country.
May 17, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead, inform me. Yes, I'm straight, but 20 years of dealing with a very wide spectrum of gay people in all kinds of ways, good and bad, doesn't exactly leave me ignorant of the groups and subgroups and what goes on.
I'm sorry you think it's mostly conspiracy, essentially malignant, and so on. Yes, there's some of the worst misuse of male privilege and chauvinism in parts, and lots of behavior that is grotesque, beyond cynical, probably criminal, and whatnot. And yes, some of it has been inflicted on me. I've paid a price.
Unlike you, I've never seen a solution in further punishment and denial. For all the compensatory and retaliatory action and activities done done by them, the bottom line is still that gay people live in a miserable social condition in this country.
At the moment the story is that the assimilation of gay people into mainstream society is a decision that has been made, though many people persist in denial of it and prefer to drag its realization out. The backlash to things like gay marriage legalization is fear of what that means in terms of dealing with and paying costs of the pent-up trauma that emerges.
Of course the assimilation will follow the usual pattern on both sides- there will be older generations who simply aren't able to. There are middle generations that will struggle to, very noisily, and not succeed very well. And there are the youngest generation which will mostly succeed, though not fully. Only the generation that is still being born will be fully free. IOW, the problem is ultimately solved by the cemeteries- as always.
There is indeed a town San Pasqual, with a semifamous battlefield and an Indian reservation, near Escondido. But the reference in my nic is actually to the Spanish missionary name of a portion of present Pasadena. It's a little insider reference for the some of us who went to the former Throop Polytechnic Institute.
May 17, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post brings back good memories for me... I (am straight and unmarried, for the record) was working two blocks away from SF city hall at the time and remember sneaking away from work every chance I had to watch what was happening and celebrate with the couples. I didn't know any of them, but many of them had traveled great distances to be there and I remember hearing their stories and eating wedding cake. I was very proud to be a San Franciscan that week. Seeing people so happy just made it even more difficult for me to understand the opposition.
May 16, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was actually less than a block away from City Hall when it happened, in a meeting. During a break we got word.
At the time I was still in favor of gay marriage.
Some people were overjoyed saying what a huge step it was. There was no pragmatic concern for strategy or long term outcome.
I remember commenting, somewhat hesitantly, and wondering if everybody knew something I didn't.
So I questioned it a little bit, said something to the extent of "but won't this just be repealed and generate a backlash? How will that be avoided?" Also, wasn't it clearly a pander to the Castro by Newsom after being challenged by Ammiano?
To which I mostly got blank states.
I realized then and started noticing more that vast majority of people who favored gay marriage had no real knowledge of the issues or tactical plan to get there, nor did I. It was just an identity politics issue and PCness. The more i researched it the more I realized it's a wedge issue used to distract and manipulate people while picking their pockets, much like the politics of religious right. Same bullshit.
May 16, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a cold cold fish. Anyone who was present to the weddings and the joy at City Hall that day who spent their time thinking that this was all some manipulation to get rich off, some left wing con job on it's own supporters is just not connected to reality or humanity. You seem to wallow in your hyper-cynical conspiracy theories of big business manipulation. What a pathetic pretense of analysis and insight. Sounds like some bitter puke from a deeply unhappy disconnected misanthrope.
May 17, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I was just being realistic and have been rather prescient on how issues would play out several steps and several years in advance.
That's also how civil rights movements operated successfully; India's independence movement, etc.
That's the reality I'm connected to. What are you connected to? Head > ass closed circuit?
May 18, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pissing on someone else's "happiest day" is not being realistic .... it is being a jerk. You claim some overwrought analysis of history to cover your sad ass bad attitude. You think you are smarter than everyone .... fine .... you are maybe never going to understand this ... love conquers all.
May 18, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't whine.
Marriages are not just a love relationship and party for two individuals. They're also social contract with the community as a participant, committing to provide services and binding them under law economically and otherwise.
Marriage is a community sanctioned service, extended broadly, but ultimatly with some restrictions which are decided by democratic process in the community. It's not a universal and inviolate right.
As a community service, yes individuals in the community do have the right to comment.
You may or not like the public opinion and decisions at various times. Regardless, that's the principle by which these issues are decided, and whining doesn't change it.
May 19, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another wickedly hilarious article from Mark Morford:
Court approves evil gay agenda
Satan's plan to make uptight straight people "really uncomfortable" working out "fabulously," say Bay Area gays
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, May 16, 2008
We are all going to die. Very, very soon. Did you know?
Apparently, the signs are all in place and the plague is clearly nigh and Armageddon is fast upon us because, oh my angry heterosexual god, the announcement has now been handed down: Couples who deeply love one another may now get married in California. It's true.
Wait, there's more. The couple in question might both have penises. Or they both might not. This is the crazy, terrifying new thing: It is totally up to them. Can you imagine?
Put another way: If you are a loving couple in this fine and baffled state, your particular combination of genitalia has officially been deemed irrelevant as far as whether or not you may hold a lovely little ceremony and enjoy a year or three of wedded bliss and buy a tiny condo you can't really afford, and then fight about money and who gets to name the dog as you lose that once-omnipotent romantic spark and rarely have sex anymore and eat your meals in silence as half of you get divorced in about 5.3 years and end up back on the dating scene, wondering whatever happened to your dreams. You know, just like everyone else!
Isn't that wonderful? Isn't that absolutely terrifying? Isn't that both? You're damn right it is.
Here's the problem: despite the tears of joy flooding through the gay community and despite the soothing gobs of liberal bliss pouring like warm honey over tens of thousands -- nay, millions -- of progressive humans worldwide, all of whom are cheering this landmark groundbreaking rainbow-colored California Supreme Court decision, seeing it as one of the most positive, hopeful shifts to occur in decades, the armies of right-wing darkness are screaming their dread, scraping their nails on the chalkboard of fear, rallying the bitterly faithful.
Oh yes they are. This is the bad news. As you read these very words, shrill cultural conservatives from Orange County to Fresno to Stockton are holding meetings in all sorts of grungy subbasements and moldy rec rooms and sterile Holiday Inn conference rooms, sipping watery Sanka and sweating profusely in their armpits and scowling like angry cats as they work to put a quick and painful stop to all this gay-loving God-hating nonsense, by way of an initiative on the November ballot outlawing icky and confusing gay marriage, by constitutional decree, once and for all.
See? Same as it ever was: One beautiful step forward, one giant jackboot back.
Or is it? This is the big question now facing the intelligent and sex-positive world: Can they succeed? Will the forces of religious righteousness and repressed sexuality and violent Biblical misunderstanding be able to pull one last Rove-like maneuver out of the hat of conservative hate? Put more simply: Are the farm-belt minions still sufficiently scared of happy gay people in love?
It might not be such an easy trick this time. This is the good news. It is the twilight of the Bush Endtimes and the right wing hate machine is no longer the nasty Hummer of bloviated pain it once was. What's more, there's this pesky thing known as a $3 trillion war. There is brutal economic recession. There is environmental collapse. Really, who cares about happy gay people getting married when it costs 4 bucks a gallon to get to Wal-Mart? Priorities, people.
What's more, it was one thing for an uppity and slick San Francisco mayor to try and make a name for himself and enter the gay history books by allowing all those happy gay people to stand in the rain back in 2004 and get married in City Hall, only to have it all annuled by the courts.
But it is quite another when a powerhouse seven-member Supreme Court -- six of whom are moderate Repubicans -- of the largest and most potent state in the union says, hey, you know what? It appears we've had it wrong all along. It appears there is actually nothing the slightest bit wrong or unlawful or even dangerous about allowing people of the same gender to buy overpriced formalwear and drink way too much champagne and dance to crappy '80s power ballads in the Chardonnay Room of a low-rent winery up in Napa, and call it a wedding.
Who can argue with that? Hell, to this very day, cultural conservatives still have no idea exactly why they hate gay marriage. There is still zero articulation. There is a complete lack of fact or understanding and I have yet to meet a single person of any political stripe who can adequately explain exactly why gay marriage is so dangerous, or who's threatened, or how. Same as it ever was? Yes. Only now, their misunderstanding feels quite a bit less dangerous, and far more pathetic.
Meanwhile, the chocolate, whipped cream, ice sculpture, engraved invitation, lace, taffeta, silk, wedding chapel, tux rental, Elvis impersonator, wedding cake, folding lawn chair, large party tent, catering, floral arrangement, prenuptial attorney, divorce attorney, surrogate parent, and cutesy wedding shower gift bag industries are all simultaneously rejoicing at the prospect.
Think of it. Thousands of new weddings, a million new rehearsal dinner reservations, countless fresh registrations at regional Pottery Barns and Crate and Barrels, endless DJs replaying old Elton John and Celine Dion and Shrek soundtrack tunes. The sagging and desperate California economy is positively grinning at the idea, a grin which is right now going beautifully with the thousands of people already signing up for their ceremonies at city halls across the state.
Which means the only ones left still scowling, still bitter and miserable and unhappy about it all, are the ones who never understood much about love and progress in the first place. What a shame. They're gonna miss one hell of a reception.
May 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going out on a limb and predict that this won't influence this fall's election in any meaningful way.
First off, all three remaining major-party candidates take the same (nervous) view: no deal on gay marriage, but domestic partnership is okay. So they're out of the equation.
What about the backlash, dozens of anti-gay-marriage initiatives drawing conservatives to the polls to vote against the horribleness (and vote for McCain while they're at it)? It probably won't happen, except in a couple of states. Why? Because it's already happened, in 2002 and 2004. Most of the places which are likely to enact anti-gay-marriage referenda...have already done so. Yes, there'll be a push in California because of this ruling, but it won't be enough to push the state Republican.
Peace,
Paul
May 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has any of you self-congratulating fools ever talked to a straight person? The ruling is a disgrace because the judges seized the roles not intended for them. They overturned the will of the people. Name one "privilege" that homosexuals living in civil unions don't have when compared to real marriages. If you are looking for approval and normalcy you won't get it. Homosexuality is still a disgusting lifestyle choice. Narcissism and self-hate cause homosexuals to seek self-affirmation through courts because the people would not support their bogus fight for "equal rights". How many of the so-called supporters of homosexual “rights” would want their kids to choose this dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle?
May 17, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You and your variety of bigotry aren't "the will of the people".
Prop. 22 got 61.4% in 2000%. Its reincarnation might get to 54% this fall, max. At 1%+ shift per year nationally, the clock is simply ticking down on you and your kind.
If you don't like it, you might have figure out some appropriate Third World country to move to soon. Someplace like Nigeria, or Saudi Arabia, or Uganda, or Iran.
May 17, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Loki is an idiot. But having said that, you're no better. You're mirror images really.
Once the Constitution is amended it's not going to be re-amended for a long time. Get real. Look at Prop 13. Gay marriage in all likelihood will be banned constitutionally and remain that way for 20+ years.
Gay marriage is the Dem's version of anti-abortion activism. It's not really been properly managed if they wanted to win. But it's sure been a great way to manufacture a wedge issue and perpetual war. A Sisyphean wedge.
Who wins? Same as every wedge issue, it ultimately benefits Wall Street by distracting voters from real issues with bipartisan support.
Look Feinstein for example. Never met a wedge issue she didn't hype and it keeps her in office just as wedge issues keep various Republicans in office. They fight and fight on wedge issues and nothing ever changes or gets resolved. A gun requirement passes for a little while, an abortion requirement passes for a little while, then things reverse. SOS.
But they never miss a chance to sponsor and pass legislation for big business. It can be legislation totally unpopular across the political spectrum, like bankruptcy, domestic spying, tax cuts to the hyper wealthy, etc, and there will still be bipartisan support for it, fast tracked even.
It's a con. These wedge issues are perpetuated to keep people spinning and most times if you look into the record of a culture warrior you'll find a lot of advocacy for big business slipped in between the wedge issues and sensational headlines.
May 17, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink