You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
Having watched the court proceedings on television, I was pretty certain that the California Supreme Court was going to uphold Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to overturn an earlier court ruling allowing gay couples the freedom to marry.
Still, knowing that a punch to the gut is coming does not make it hurt any less. The 6-1 ruling was degrading, humiliating and a shameful day that will live in infamy. The decision upheld tyranny of the majority and promoted the idiotic idea of mob rule.
What next?
Can the voters of California now decide whether I can eat bacon and eggs for breakfast? Are they able to choose if I can own a cat or a dog? May they regulate my weight or pick what career I choose?
These are serious questions. The fact is, banning my potential marriage is more an imposition and hardship than if the voters had chosen to enact the above examples. Any non-biased person would agree that the idea of the public banning the possibility of their marriage would be both invasive and traumatizing. Yet, the voters of California, backed by the Supreme Court, upheld this Orwellian idea.
Really, what are the limits to such insanity? Are we unique individuals with inalienable rights or public property with provisional rights granted or eliminated by the whims of the fickle electorate?
In his dissent, Justice Carlos Moreno was correct to write, "Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, by wrenching minority rights away from judicial protection and subjecting them instead to a majority vote, attacks the very core of the equal protection principle."
There are now calls from gay and lesbian leaders to place the marriage question back on the ballot in California. The competitive side of me says, "bring it on, let's win." But, another side believes that the gay and lesbian community should simply boycott all votes relating to rights -- and take our outrage to the streets and the halls of Congress. After all, why are we the only minority in the history of this nation that has had to explicitly win public approval for our most basic needs?
Hell, if African-Americans had been forced to win equality through referendum they'd still be drinking out of separate water fountains in the South. Yet, we are routinely forced to degrade our humanity and grovel to voters, who smugly sit on the throne, judging whether we are worthy to visit our ailing spouses (scratch that, we are now partners, again) in their hospital beds.
The only silver lining is that the very act of fighting has compelled more people to "come out" -- thus eroding the stigma of homosexuality. Recent public opinion polls have reflected this shift, with supporters of marriage equality reaching more than 40 percent. Demographic trends are also favorable, with younger voters embracing the freedom to marry.
No doubt, anti-gay forces are celebrating today's ruling as a major victory. Still, the court's ruling upholding the same-sex marriages that already took place in California must be disconcerting. If the existence of 18,000 gay married couples did not cause God to plunge California into the ocean, why would 180,000 make a difference? Our opponents have a real messaging problem that will only deepen, as more Californians are introduced to these couples. The "Lucky 18,000" also creates the existence of a new caste system. At the top of the hierarchy are straight married couples that receive state and federal benefits. The next rung down, we have legally married gay couples who receive state benefits. Then, of course, we have the untouchables, who receive state domestic partnerships as a result of their inferior status. It seems that until gay couples can tie the knot, the judicial system will be tied up in knots over these supposedly "separate but equal" arrangements. And, I'm confident the public will eventually see the current reality as inherently unfair.
At a rally in New York in response to the ruling, I joined thousands of protesters who turned their disappointment into determination and pain into progress. Our movement is resilient and we understand that this is merely a speed bump that will not be a deterrent from ultimate victory.
I am further encouraged by the hoards of young activists who joined me at the Union Square demonstration. Mobilized by a sense of injustice and organized through the Internet, they may be the first generation fully supported by their peers. By the time they attend their college reunions, state sanctioned discrimination will be a distant memory, like homework and drinking games. Unfortunately, that day has yet to arrive, and gay people of all ages are experiencing a nasty hangover from the California Supreme Court's egregious ruling.
26 Comments:
The ideal scenario would be if Obama could get a few more liberals on the supreme court and then have marriage equality for the entire nation decreed by the SCOTUS. Of course the wingnuts would wage an ongoing war to have it overturned, but I suspect they would have about as much success as they have with overturning Roe v Wade.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/27/2009 9:26 AM
Wayne is right. The Supreme Court decision in CA has vitually created a new "caste system." What a mess they have created. Their so-called "air-tight logic" has indeed created the caste system. Just a thought but I wonder how many Mormons argued for their "legal" polygamous marriages before Utah became a state and denied the legality of such marriages?
posted by Jeff Winter, at
5/27/2009 10:30 AM
This may cheer you up (just saw on huffpo)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carlos-watson/how-the-prop-8-ruling-wil_b_208095.html
posted by Anonymous, at
5/27/2009 11:44 AM
The court acted disgracefully. The majority was unable to act impartially and let their biases infect their ruling. Absolutely disgraceful.
posted by Spouse Walker, at
5/27/2009 11:55 AM
The best place to overturn Prop. 8 is at the ballot box, not in the courts. If the court had overruled Prop. 8, there would be an air of illegitimcy attached to the ruling that would hurt us for years to come.
Anti-gay forces have nothing to celebrate. Prop. 8 will certainly be overturned, and they know it. When it is finally defeated, whether it be in 2010 or beyond, we will then be able to note that "the people have spoken," which is currently the only argument that supporters of Prop. 8have. Taking it away from them and making it our own will be a crucial part of our victory.
It is crucial to our long term success. It could not happen if the court were to invalidate the proposition. California has a ballot measure system that is in desperate need of fixing.
posted by Chris L., at
5/27/2009 12:57 PM
I have a problem with ballot initiatives and other forms of referenda when it comes to civil rights, especially full equality. Why should any society get to vote on who gets what rights? Imagine if the African-American civil rights movement has been subjected to the same treatment, they'd still be second class citizens and anti-misegenation laws would still be on the books. I was of the impression that the full rights of the minority must be protected according to the first ten amendments of the constitution, but I suppose that's not the case. I'm now inferring that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against any group of people at the volition of the majority vote. Is that what democracy is supposed to be? Or is this fascism rearing its ugly head.
I've not yet learned anything about Sotomayor's selection by Obama, where does she stand on equality issues? If she is confirmed, that will bring the total number of Catholics on the bench to six, an imbalance if ever there were, and I'm very uneasy about that. How on earth could we ever get equality with a stacked court if it ever came to that?
The reason it failed in California is precisely because of the imbalance on the bench, six conservatives and one democrat, the only one who dissented.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/27/2009 2:54 PM
Please excuse the typos and grammatical errors in my previous post. I just noticed them.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/27/2009 2:55 PM
California's ballot initiative process is bizarre. It allows citizens to directly change their constitution on seemingly any grounds and to include "unconstitutional" things in their constitution, making them, in essence, constitutional, if you get my meaning. If the citizens of CA voted to exclude "anyone under age 30" from being married, for example, I guess they would be allowed to do so, according to the law as it is written in that state.
This is very strange, and I understand why the CA Supreme Court felt that its hands were tied. If the citizenry changes the constitution of the state, how can the court declare that change "unconstitutional" if it is declared a part of the constitution with which they would have to base their ruling on, no matter how seemingly eggregious?
I am interested in the FEDERAL lawsuit that is being filed by Theodore Olsen and David Bois. No state constitution can be at odds with our national one; the federal supercedes the state. While it might seem difficult for a state court to overturn a ballot initiative that is passed by its own voters, it is unquestionably a federal courts role to ensure equal protection and due process, since they are higher than the state.
A federal court would be completely within their rights to throw out Prop. 8. But again, we must realize that the anti-gay forces have nothing to celebrate. Proposition 8 will be thrown out somehow; either by federal court or by another ballot initiative. It is going to happen sooner or later.
The anti-gay crowd seems content in relishing short term victories. I for one am tired of them claiming that God is on their side and that the state must conform with their small view of who God is and what he wants. They have a right to govern what is permitted in their churches, but not in the public at large. They are a small-minded group of hypocrites. Sure, they can slow down, but not stop, full equality for gays and lesbians. Nonetheless, even they must know that they will never win this battle; we will always keep fighting and they will ultimately run out of gas, as they did in Massachusettes.
Also, the fact that some same-sex couples (18,000) are now seemingly validly married while no other same-sex couple can get married is incredibly bizarre. This creates an unusual situation. Is it a violation of "equal protection?" A federal court might find this to be totally unacceptable. We will see what happens, but I for one see the writing on the wall and I am not bothered by the events of the past two days.
We are on our way towards full equality. Make no mistake about it, Proposition 8, which passed with 52%, will be done away with one way or the other. This ruling is a blessing in disguise; it has galvinized the community. I wonder if others on this blog share my optimism.
posted by Chris L., at
5/27/2009 5:29 PM
Today, the CA Supreme Court in its VERY narrow decision, said that Prop 8 was legally contested but it never addressed it's own arbitrary ruling overturning the also legally contested Prop 22, an action which created this mess in first place.
They have said, in essence, that the people have the right to amend the State constitution, but the court reserves the right to make law from the bench, a duty wholly and solely invested in the People through elected representatives or by ballot petition - NOT the courts.
This is a court that is ideologically opposed to the decision of California voters to limit the definition of marriage and said as much in its majority opinion on Prop 22.
posted by Jay Jay, at
5/27/2009 6:45 PM
Jay Jay, the court did not make a law. The constitution is the supreme law and it said that people are entitled to equal protection. Prop 22 violated that law and thus was struck down. Then, in the correct course of things gays were entitled to the equal right to marry - no new law needed.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
5/27/2009 10:21 PM
Chris, Connecticut also has a provision for revising its constitution. That state did an outstanding job making sure that no such revision came to fruition and as a result, marriage equality passed fairly easily. Our state, New York, won't have such an easy time I don't think.
In any event, I find referenda on civil rights issues repugnant and not in the best interests of society or democracy, mob rule is nothing more than tyranny.
The recent decision upholding Prop. H8 is quite clear, the supreme court has washed its hand of the entire matter. What if we don't get anywhere, ballot after ballot? It could well turn out that way, what then? With the SCOTUS now stacked with 6 catholics including Sotomayor....do any of us really think that they any decision they may have to make further down the road will be favorable to us? I don't.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/28/2009 9:50 AM
I'd rather have Catholics on the Supreme Court than evangelicals, although the private beliefs of any justice should carry little weight when it comes to deciding a case. Judges are supposed to vote the law, not their personal opinion. They are to vote what the law says, and this is what the CA Supreme Court did, even though a majority of them favor same-sex marriage. Some Catholics are very liberal, in fact, but again, it shouldn't matter.
As for our nasty opponents, saying that "nothing in the Constitution permits gay marriage" is like saying that "nothing in the Constitution permits interracial marriage." That is true, but in fact, marriage is a fundamental right, and all people are within their rights to marry any adult that they choose, regardless of race, religion or gender. That is how I see this issue.
We have much mto be happy about. We have done exceedingly well. I would rather be on our side than on that of the opposition. Their cause is doomed. Same-sex marriage is already the law of the land in five states. That is huge. We should be thrilled with the progress we've made and must continue to battle the forces of discrimination.
I think the small-minded religious nuts who appear on television and rant and rave about their belief that "God ordained marriage for the last 5,000 years to be between a man and a woman" are repugnant. Yes, and the Bible says that slaves should obey their masters. These people are intentionally ignorant.
They are in the process of losing this battle. We have real reasons to be optimistic, however. It is the other side that should be worried.
posted by Chris L., at
5/28/2009 2:26 PM
Chris said "As for our nasty opponents, saying that "nothing in the Constitution permits gay marriage" is like saying that "nothing in the Constitution permits interracial marriage.".".
The ironic part is that they're clearly wrong on that. The ninth amendment says that the enumeration of rights in the constitution does not disparage other rights which are retained by the people - such as the right to equal marriage. By their "logic" the constitution doesn't specifically say there is a right to blow your nose, eat supper, or for heterosexual sex, therefore no one has the right to do those things - clearly not the case.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
5/28/2009 3:38 PM
Yes, I agree. What I am saying is that there doesn't have to be a specific right in the Constitution for "same-sex" marriage, just like there doesn't need to be a right for interracial marriage, in order for it to be a protected right.
The Constitution doesn't allow different treatment based on race, gender or religion. The government cannot tell anyone that they can only be married if they marry a certain gender, in this case the opposite one. A right doesn't have to be specifically enumerated, word for word, in order for it to exist. If that were the case, the Constitution would be as thick as a phone book.
Our opposition is engaging in absurd logic. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" per se. There is only "marriage," and the government cannot tell anyone what the race, the religion or gender of their life partner must be, especially when dealing with a fundamental right, which is what the Supreme Court has said that marriage is. It is so fundamental that even prisoners who are convicted murderers must be allowed to marry.
A lot of people here might not agree with my optimism, but we have already won this battle. The only question is how long it will take for same-sex marriage to become a national reality. The opposition can only delay it, not prevent it.
When they go on television and quote the Bible, as if that has any relevance whatsoever, they look and sound like fools and fanatics. American law is not determined by the Bible. If it were, we'd still have slavery, an institution that fundamentalists, in fact, once supported because it is clearly condoned in scripture. These people have always been wrong throughout history, and they are wrong this time around, too.
posted by Chris L., at
5/28/2009 7:27 PM
Actually, Chris....the old testament doesn't even mention the word "marriage", nor was any religious ceremony performed to "join" Adam & Eve, it was merely implied when "God" took a rib from Adam's side and created a "female" out of it. That to me doesn't signify marriage, it was just a means to procreate and procreate they did many times over via incest with their children to have populated the planet. The fundamentalists actually believe that Adam & Eve were the first parents of the human race (Genesis), so just by that alone, they must concede that incest must have been committed and condoned, otherwise their God would have destroyed them. Obviously God "saw that it was good" and is it any wonder why these fundies are so whacked out?
Since the same fundamentalists believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, how do they explain the prehistoric era, there was no sign of mankind? Having said that, why would their God create fauna and flora first and millions of years later, mankind? Makes no sense, illogical and irrational and a sign of accute dementia, something that is quite abundantly apparent in the grand obstructionist party of hate.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/29/2009 9:23 AM
I was in a fundamentalist church once, and they discussed the Adam and Eve story. They openly said that incest was involved, but that it was OK because the "genetics were pure" at the time. I was shocked when they said this. I found it absurd to believe that any thinking human being could so casually believe such a thing and not have a problem with it.
This is the type of hogwash that constitutes the foudation of what they believe. Also, polygamy is rampant within the old testament. I wonder if the haters don't know this, or if they deliberately turn a blind eye to those things which are inconvenient. Marriage has hardly been the same for the past 5,000 years.
Up until a century ago, the husband essentially owned the wife. But is it any surprise that they are ignorant of both history and of the scripture that they claim to follow?
In Matthew 19, where Jesus discusses marriage, even he said that "not everyone can accept this teaching." Go check it out; it's there. The fundamentalists deliberately ignore Jesus on that point. It isn't Jesus that they're interested in. It's hitching their bigotry to the Bible in order to legitimize it. They never take responsibility for their actions. It's always "the Bible" that takes the blame.
People like this have always cloaked their bigotries in scripture; that is certainly not new. It is, however, a sign that they refuse to accept responsibility for their personal beliefs.
Even if there were no Bible, these people would still be small-minded bigots. I am glad that I was a Pentecostal in my teen years. I got to see for myself what a bunch of outright phonies most of them were.
Their beliefs about the law are nonsensical. We live in a secular country. Our laws are not based on "the Bible." If they were, divorce would be virtually illegal. They are totally full of it and don't even truly believe in the Bible that they claim to believe in.
It simply presents an opportunity for them to deflect responsibility for their beliefs. Ironically, they don't want to own up to them; they prefer to pass them off as God's views, not their own. They claim God for themselves, and that is the ultimate blasphemy. They are liars; they lie to themselves and to others. Thankfully, they have lost the marriage battle and can only delay the inevitable.
posted by Chris L., at
5/29/2009 12:26 PM
Chris, the thing about them is that they think religion owns marriage, including civil marriage a totally different animal. The religious right's mantra regarding procreation is lame at best, at the core of this issue. I'm surprised they're not also seeking to ban straight couples from marrying who choose not to or can't reproduce. If they want us banned from marriage, then they have to ban everyone else who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs. Religion has hijacked the political process and I blame the cowards in the Democratic party for not taking them on. Why god is in the mix when anyone run's for the highest office is beyond my comprehension. I know of no other western society quite like this one when it comes to religion, the determining factor as to who can and cannot get elected. To me, one's religious beliefs are a private matter and not the business of the electorate, virtually every western society gets that but ours doesn't.
Gary, I don't think we'll be around to see any progressives on the SCOTUS. Right now, marriage equality would be defeated with the likes of Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas and I'm uneasy knowing that Olsen and Boies are going to take Prop. H8 to the federal level. My gut feeling is when they do, it could set us back for decades and even in some instances compel more states to enact DOMA. Its hard to say how Kennedy would handle it, the fifth catholic on the bench and a republican, and if he's a practicing catholic, I doubt if he'd risk facing possible excommunication by voting in our favor, though he has been known to disagree with the other four arch homophobes on several occasions. Its an extremely difficult situation we're in, there is no easy way out.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/29/2009 12:47 PM
New Hampshire Dems have killed a ballot intiative allowing referenda. Now if only New York can do the same when our own legislation comes up for a vote.
http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Senate:+No+ballot+vote+on+gay+marriage&articleId=2a4abcda-30aa-4eb5-b781-455490e8ffd6
posted by Anonymous, at
5/29/2009 2:17 PM
It is actually "good news" that our opposition has such weak arguments. They are doomed to fail. You don't even see (true) conservatives on the air anymore railing against same-sex marriage; it's just the Bible nuts who come on and display their total lack of historical knowledge as it pertains to marriage.
Ten years ago, in 1999, if you would have told someone that five or six states would recognize same-sex marriage in the year 2009, they would have told you that you were crazy. Hell, I would have told them that they were crazy. We have much to be happy about and all the reasons in the world to be upbeat about this. I don't think anyone actually believes that Prop. 8 will exist in ten or even five years from now.
Robert, I agree, there are 4 on the SCOTUS who seem inclined to rule against us. If we win, it would be 5-4, although I would not be totally surprised if John Roberts would surprise us and make it 6-3. I have been pleasantly surprised with Roberts, as he seems fair and measured; I don't think he would rule against gays out of mere homophobic intent.
The future is ours. There have been frustrations along the way, and there will be more, but we should all be smiling. We are on the verge of realizing the promise of "liberty and justice for all."
posted by Chris L., at
5/29/2009 3:53 PM
Chris, I wish I had your confidence in Roberts. From what I know he's a practising catholic and against abortion and I daresay, against a woman's right to choose as are the other three. I just don't like the fact that we'll have six catholics on the bench, a majority. I don't think that really bodes well for equality in the long run. I still don't understand why Sotomayor has not been asked about her views on equality either, nobody has dared ask her. I hope this comes out in the confirmation hearings, if it doesn't, I shudder to think if she's against us and you know, I doubt if Obama really gives a damn either and probably hasn't even taken it into consideration.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/30/2009 8:35 AM
Maybe we should have this as our gay anthem to fight bigotry. I admire the youth of France and Brit rock singer Lily Allen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV26OMSb_VQ&feature=player_embedded
posted by Anonymous, at
5/30/2009 10:10 AM
I wonder if Obama really does give a damn. What I do know is that he's a smug, arrogant sonofabitch. Having said that, he is considerably better than his predecessor. Sadly, however, he is not unlike most American politicians.
Their biggest agenda isn't getting something meaningful done, it's holding onto power, and they will slow or even abandon a good cause if it threatens their position.
Obama probably couldn't even get out of bed in the morning if there wasn't a "consensus" that he do so. However, I do think that we will make some progress with him, but he is not the bold politician that many of us were hoping for. What a shock.
As for Judge Sotomayor, I think she is on our side, but who knows? She lives in the West Village, as the below news story shows, and that's a fairly good sign. :-)
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-nyhome2812813099may27,0,3678192.story
posted by Chris L., at
5/30/2009 2:55 PM
Chris, I only hope she is on our side. Obama has no scruples when it comes to equality issues. He consorts with right wing "men of the cloth" for advice, men who oppose full equality just as he does, so nothing would surprise me. I still can't understand why nobody in the media has asked her for her views, but maybe that will come out during the confirmation hearings. If not, we'd better brace ourselves.
To digress, Maggie Gallagher who heads the National Organization for Marriage is putting out radio broadcasts in New York State urging voters to write their legislators to ban marriage equality. She's also saying that children will be subject to being taught about marriage equality in our schools....a fact already denied by the education authorities. I see a slander lawsuit on the horizon. She needs to STFU or face a massive backlash from us and our allies. I'm sick and tired of these psychos venting their venom, lies and distortions in the name of religious beliefs. She has chutzpah, a former unwed mother too now advocating the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/31/2009 8:45 AM
If there is anything positive action to result from this ~ as Wayne said ~ it is that this ruling has inspired more people (including myself) to fight. I haven't been "out" all that long, but from the beginning I've avoided any association in gay rights activism of any kind ~ and as a result waited until after college to come out. My long list of reasons as to why not be involved into activism pales to the importance of why we all need to take a stand. Thanks to my boyfriend for encouraging me to follow this story and wake up.
So yeah, they won for now. But from my viewpoint this short term victory has only inspired the rest of us to do our part instead of sit back on the sidelines.
posted by TrevorHere, at
6/08/2009 1:25 PM
