The Old Eighteen

They're here, they're queer, they're married. Get used to it.

Yesterday was a historic day in California, as gay and lesbian couples were legally married for the first time in the state's history in the wake of a landmark ruling by the California Supreme Court striking down the state's prohibition against same-sex marriages.  In LA County, the first couple to marry was Diane Olson and Robin Tyler, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the gay marriage ban.  More moving for me, though, was the story of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who were married in San Francisco by Mayor Gavin Newsom.  They have been together for over half a century, their love born in a time when gays and lesbians faced almost universal condemnation and scorn, and could even be thrown in jail.  For many years they were unable to express any sort of affection in public, but they would come to find strength in the friendship of other lesbians who shared their secret.  With those friends they formed the Daughters of Bilitis, one of the first lesbian organizations in the country, in 1955.  Now in their 80's, their relationship is finally being treated with the respect and dignity that it deserves, the same respect and dignity given without a second thought to straight couples.

The haters were there, of course, holding up signs that said "Hello, Gay People, God Is Upset," and my favorite, "Homo Sex Is a Threat to National Security" (great, I guess that means Bush will be invading San Francisco next).  No matter - let these idiots have their hate, because in the end, that's all they'll be left with.  Gay marriage is here in the biggest state in the country, and regardless of whether or not California voters approve a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage to appear on the November ballot, it's here to stay.  The proposed constitutional ban doesn't contain any language explicitly undoing any of the thousands of marriages that would almost certainly take place prior to its passage, and if it did, it wouldn't pass constitutional muster - Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.  These couples are going to remain married until they die or get divorced.  So the seed has been planted, and even if the haters get their constitutional amendment passed, the couples who are married between now and then will serve as a positive example of the fact that allowing gays and lesbians to marry doesn't pose a threat to national security, or western civilization, or whatever next level of hyperbole that the homophobes resort to.  While couples like the two above continue to live and function like other ordinary people, the haters will continue to debase themselves publicly.  And as the older generations slowly die off over the next few decades, the haters will have fewer and fewer people in their camp to picket gay marriage ceremonies, and to vote for anti-gay laws, and ultimately, justice will prevail.  So get used to what you're seeing, haters, because as the song says, we shall overcome, someday.

Gay marriage is coming to California, whether the haters like it or not

Thank god for those liberal activist judges: yesterday the California Supreme Court rejected petitions asking for reconsideration of its May 15 ruling permitting same-sex marriages in the state, and refused to delay enforcement of the decision until after the November elections, meaning that gay and lesbian couples will be able to get married beginning on June 17.  This is significant, because homophobic right-wingers were able to get an initiative added on the November ballot that would undo last month's ruling and amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman," after submitting 1.1 million signatures in favor of a ballot measure.  Because of yesterday's rulling, thousands of weddings will take place before the vote does, which will seriously complicate the issue of banning gay marriage in the state:

A soon-to-be-released study by the Williams Institute at UCLA's School of Law predicts that thousands of gay couples will rush to the altar before the November election.

The study projects that the numbers will swell if voters reject the anti-gay-marriage initiative, forecasting that 51,320 gay California couples and 67,513 from out of state will marry in the state during the next three years.

Extrapolating from the study, based on census data and Massachusetts' experience after it permitted same-sex matrimony, the director of the institute -- which focuses on sexual orientation law and public policy -- said more than 20,000 weddings were anticipated by November.

The effect of the November vote, if it passes, on any marriages that take place between now and then is unclear, but there is a legal precedent that might protect these marriages from being wiped off the books:

If the November initiative to ban same-sex marriage passes, the status of gay couples who already married will be heavily litigated and decided ultimately by the California Supreme Court, said UCLA law professor Brad Sears.

A legal rule that says laws should be interpreted retroactively only if they explicitly state they are retroactive "weighs in favor of this court continuing to recognize the marriages," Sears said.

Will the proposed amendment pass?  Current polling shows registered voters in favor of it by anywhere from 15 to 20 points, but with 5 months to get themselves acclimated to the sight of gay couples getting married, some voters who currently favor the amendment might rethink their positions, especially after they look around and discover that western civilization isn't collapsing around them, straight married people aren't getting divorced in droves, and god hasn't sent any fire, brimstones, or killer hurricanes to wipe California off of the map.  Other factors could also depress support for the amendment.  The polls cited in the LA Times article I linked used registered voters, not likely voters, and the question of who actually shows up to vote will have a big impact on this ballot initiative.  Young voters are likely to constitute a bigger share of the vote this fall, and they are much more open to the idea of gay marriage than older voters.  Also, with Democrats energized and Republicans depressed this election cycle for obvious reasons, there could be fewer social conservatives showing up at the polls.  And I don't see this ballot initiative having the drawing power that similar measures have had in other states during previous election cycles.

It's been said that California is a harbinger for the rest of the nation.  If so, how this all plays out could show us where the rest of the country is headed over the next few years with regard to recognizing gay marriage.  We could see a regional divide develop, much like the one that existed with regard to civil rights for African-Americans during the Jim Crow era.  but one thing is for certain: gay rights is going to be this generation's great ethical question, just as civil rights for African-Americans was during the '50's and '60's.

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

This is huge:

The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

This is a big victory for the gay rights movement, but it's far from secure:

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

This is happening just in time to put same-sex marriage and gay rights on the radar again as a campaign issue.  You can expect to see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton giving heavily lawyered answers to the question of whether they support gay marriage in the near future.  You can also expect to see the Republicans try as hard as they can to make hay out of this, with attempts to put gay marriage bans on the ballot and an effort to resurrect a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide.  Unfortunately for them, it won't get them as much traction as it has in the past.

Despite all the caveats, I'm happy to see gays and lesbians in California being given the same respect and rights for their relationships as those afforded to straight couples.  I believe that, since the institution of marriage itself is a religious sacrament, the government at any level shouldn't be in the business of regulating who that sacrament is given to.  The government should only be in the business of regulating civil unions, and to the extent that it does so, it should treat gay and straight unions equally and without prejudice under the law.  But until the government gets out of the marriage business, it should give gay couples equal access to marriage, regardless of whose tender sensibilities get tweaked.