Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Homo / News We're Winning
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:57 AM
This morning's decision was expected but, in the wake of so many recent victories, still saddening. But we have to remember that this is a long game and, despite this setback, we are winning. We're going to hear a lot about Prop 8 today, and the fight to overturn it, but let's not forget about Prop 22.
In 2000 California voters approved a law banning same-sex marriage. It was a ballot initiative, like Prop 8, but just a law, not a constitutional amendment. And it was that law, Prop 22, that the CA Supremes struck down in 2008, in their historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. And voters in 2000 approved Prop 22 in by a nearly 22-point margin. And eight years later the same voters would approved Prop 8 by four points. That's an 18-point shift in favor of marriage equality in just eight years. That's extraordinary progress. A loss is still a loss, and a loss sucks, but the trend is so strongly in our favor that we cannot lose hope. The anti-gay bigots know that they're losing this debate, and it's why they're so hot to amend state constitutions now, while they still can, while they can still count on the votes of the old, the bigoted, and the easily manipulated. But they are losing and they know it.
We're going to go back to the ballot box in California in 2010 or 2012 and voters are going to repeal Prop 8. Fundamental civil rights should not be subject to a popular vote, of course, and the CA Supremes had an opportunity to reaffirm that ideal. They chose not to, they buckled, and so we, unlike other minority groups, face the challenge of securing our rights at the ballot box. That seems daunting prospect until you recall 2000's Prop 22 and compare its margin of victory to that of 2008's Prop 8. Again, we witnessed an eighteen point shift in favor of gay marriage in California in just eight years. We can move another four points. We just have to stay in the fight and remind ourselves and each other that we are winning.
Share via
2
Keep telling yourself this is "winning," Dan. 100 more posts ending with "we are winning" throughout the year and we just might have "won."
5
Cali is like 20 sandbags when the entire dam has burst.
In the long run, the fact that the existing marriages are legal breaks the back of it.
In the long run, the fact that the existing marriages are legal breaks the back of it.
6
Mr. Poe... you seem too upset by this. Bummer, yes, leavened by Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, etc., our recent DP victory here. It's a long war and we are, by any honest assessment, winning this thing. Chin up.
8
The biggest hope was that there'd be a split and they'd keep the prior marriages legal, and that happened. That opens the door to a massive suit and may be one more push in ditching the current constitution of CA.
Anyway, I think more comforting would have been to mention that it's 40 years since Stonewall. 40. It wasn't much more than 40 between the start of the Niagara movement and the Civil Rights Movement.
Anyway, I think more comforting would have been to mention that it's 40 years since Stonewall. 40. It wasn't much more than 40 between the start of the Niagara movement and the Civil Rights Movement.
9
I know I'm not thinking clearly right now, I'm young and angry, but I can't wrap my head around this "progress." I don't understand how this sluggish pace can be termed as "winning." It's been as simple as 'we're attacking families by wanting to have families of our own' for what feels like ages now. We're fucking people. It's fucking 2009. Is this really the only way we can reach equality? We shouldn't have to wait any longer. This is fucking bullshit.
11
I go back and forth between what Mr. Poe is saying and what Dan is saying. I realize that we're making progress, but god DAMN it this sort of shit makes me angry.
12
This is the most impressive piece I've ever read of yours. It says everything we need to hear right now. All I can say is thanks. Thanks very much.
14
Thanks for posting this Dan.
I'll also have to disagree with Poe. Despite today's CA ruling, the pace seems far from sluggish to me. Come on: Maine, Vermont, and Iowa (and D.C. partly) in the last several weeks? We ARE winning. Today's ruling reduced the momentum on this issue from "lots" to "still a lot".
I'll also have to disagree with Poe. Despite today's CA ruling, the pace seems far from sluggish to me. Come on: Maine, Vermont, and Iowa (and D.C. partly) in the last several weeks? We ARE winning. Today's ruling reduced the momentum on this issue from "lots" to "still a lot".
16
When I was Mr. Poe's age, Jesse Helms proposed quarantining all homosexuals on an island to stop the spread of AIDS.
So I guess there's progress.
So I guess there's progress.
17
Dan, thanks for a well-written piece that gives a much needed perspective that is also hopeful.
The analysis of the change in the polling numbers supports the optimistic conclusion.
Perhaps additional good will come out of the ruling by motivating folks to get or remain active in the struggle to secure rights for everyone.
The analysis of the change in the polling numbers supports the optimistic conclusion.
Perhaps additional good will come out of the ruling by motivating folks to get or remain active in the struggle to secure rights for everyone.
18
This morning's decision was expected...
Really? Did you go public with this expectation in some post that I missed? Because I would really love to read a Dan Savage post that says "Based the California constitution, we have no case. But I'm still hoping that the California supremes will ignore the constitution and legislate our prefered policy."
Really? Did you go public with this expectation in some post that I missed? Because I would really love to read a Dan Savage post that says "Based the California constitution, we have no case. But I'm still hoping that the California supremes will ignore the constitution and legislate our prefered policy."
19
Gay equality movement needs more organization, more big, decent, dignified marches. Small protests and noisy riots are OK to a degree,but its not a scalable business model in your case.
You need a recognizable spokesperson. Media wants sensational news that capture the audience, make sure his speeches are worth the TV coverage. It has to be turned into a big civil rights fight. Designate your own MLK, your own Rosa Parks. And more guerilla work, in churches, in schools, among college students, get your point across.
Make it known that you are not there to hurt anyone or anything, you are the ones being hurt! You need your civil rights, unjustly taken , established and legalized. Blacks were considered 2/3 of a person back them, what about you? As a straight person it makes my heart ache to see you being so mistreated.You are going thru hell, so just keep going and dont give up.
You need a recognizable spokesperson. Media wants sensational news that capture the audience, make sure his speeches are worth the TV coverage. It has to be turned into a big civil rights fight. Designate your own MLK, your own Rosa Parks. And more guerilla work, in churches, in schools, among college students, get your point across.
Make it known that you are not there to hurt anyone or anything, you are the ones being hurt! You need your civil rights, unjustly taken , established and legalized. Blacks were considered 2/3 of a person back them, what about you? As a straight person it makes my heart ache to see you being so mistreated.You are going thru hell, so just keep going and dont give up.
20
Mr. Poe @15: You're right, equality shouldn't be determined at the state level. Even if all 50 states and U.S. territories granted full rights tomorrow, it would still be important to secure the protection of those rights on the federal level.
As states approve/grant equality, it is my hope that that doesn't make people complacent about seeking federal codification to make equality a Right under the law of the land, rather than be subjected to the whim of a given state.
As states approve/grant equality, it is my hope that that doesn't make people complacent about seeking federal codification to make equality a Right under the law of the land, rather than be subjected to the whim of a given state.
21
Mr Poe, you should familiarize yourself with the history of the civil rights struggle in the 50s and 60s. It wasn't all victory after victory from Brown v. Board to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Setbacks can and do happen. The bigots are determined and numerous, and (as in the 50s and 60s) entrenched in our institutions of powers. They'll win some victories here and there. But they're not going to be able to turn the tide.
It's like Dan says. We're winning.
Setbacks can and do happen. The bigots are determined and numerous, and (as in the 50s and 60s) entrenched in our institutions of powers. They'll win some victories here and there. But they're not going to be able to turn the tide.
It's like Dan says. We're winning.
22
Dan, Why do you use the word "Old" in the same breath with bigots and easily manipulated? Sounds to me like using the words Homosexual, pedophile, kleptomaniac, mentally ill all in the same breath like Jesse Helms might have done. Of course maybe both you and Jesse are right? Regardless that's ageism as I see it Dan. Are you "old" Dan? In some people's eyes you are "old". Cut the crap Dan. It's not about age, it's about fear, hatred, and religious mind poison.
23
This sucks, no doubt, but if you are old enough to look back on how much has happened in the last 25 years, you know this is just a temporary setback.
If someone asked me back in 1987 when gay marriage would be legalized, I would have said never. Gay sitcoms? Who'd wanna watch that. Gay sex advice columnist? Yeah, right. Gay parents? Please. Gay soldiers? Not gonna happen. My parents being cool with homosexuality? Can't imagine it. A hit TV show featuring a team of gay men who assist straight boys with poor taste in clothes, food, and decor? You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Then it all just started happening. Not immediately all at once, and in some cases, not 100%. But these various walls of homophobia seemed to crumble much more quickly and easily than just about anyone expected. Meanwhile, older generations are dying off or finally coming around, while younger generations take all of the above for granted.
There's just no way the last remaining bastions of homophobia will hold. We are winning.
If someone asked me back in 1987 when gay marriage would be legalized, I would have said never. Gay sitcoms? Who'd wanna watch that. Gay sex advice columnist? Yeah, right. Gay parents? Please. Gay soldiers? Not gonna happen. My parents being cool with homosexuality? Can't imagine it. A hit TV show featuring a team of gay men who assist straight boys with poor taste in clothes, food, and decor? You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Then it all just started happening. Not immediately all at once, and in some cases, not 100%. But these various walls of homophobia seemed to crumble much more quickly and easily than just about anyone expected. Meanwhile, older generations are dying off or finally coming around, while younger generations take all of the above for granted.
There's just no way the last remaining bastions of homophobia will hold. We are winning.
24
Hi, Dan. I think you're wrong about the CA supreme court. I don't think they had the ability to really change things. The case was about whether prop 8 was an amendment or a revision and not on the merits of the proposition. Given that a majority of the court ruled in favor of equality a short time ago, I think if the case had been about the merits of prop 8, prop 8 would have been struck down.
The court did leave open the avenues for challenges to prop 8 in regards to equal protection arguments as well as challenges from people who were married in other states who want california to recognize their marriage.
The court did leave open the avenues for challenges to prop 8 in regards to equal protection arguments as well as challenges from people who were married in other states who want california to recognize their marriage.
25
Dan, we need more than a 4-point swing. When a proposition on the CA ballot is a repeal of a previously passed proposition, it needs 60 percent to pass, not 50 percent. Our complacency(and there were a LOT of people in the queer press who basically said the anti-8 forces were just money grubbing and we had it in the bag so don't bother donating) set us back a few years.
But hey, 2010 is the year where the federal estate tax repeal expires, so a lot of old voters should be, um, off the rolls.
But hey, 2010 is the year where the federal estate tax repeal expires, so a lot of old voters should be, um, off the rolls.
26
It's frustrating for me. Most of my family lives in CA. They are conservative christians who love me in spite of my gayness. They give the same tired religious based argument against gay marriage and they've ALL been married more than once. My sister, the most devout of them all is on her 3rd marriage (and only 4 years in is already in trouble).
So I've got people in my family that are in favor of keeping me single. I don't know how to reach them because they are zombies for the lord. ::sigh::
So annoying!
So I've got people in my family that are in favor of keeping me single. I don't know how to reach them because they are zombies for the lord. ::sigh::
So annoying!
28
Napoleon XIV @ 16,
That reminds me of this movie where this group of young jackasses in New York City is harrassing this group of gay gays and one of the jackasses sez "they oughtta put all you queers on an island" and the gay dude deadpans "they did and you're on it--it's called Manhattan."
That reminds me of this movie where this group of young jackasses in New York City is harrassing this group of gay gays and one of the jackasses sez "they oughtta put all you queers on an island" and the gay dude deadpans "they did and you're on it--it's called Manhattan."
29
Reaction from the religious right is coming in-- they're not really concerned that Prop 8 was upheld, they knew it would be. They're really angry that the 18,000 marriages will stay valid. Fantastically angry, actually.
30
If you girls are feeling buttsore now wait till this gets before the Congress.
So far you've been able to cherry pick your battles; Vermont, Mass, Iowa Courts- good ol' liberal California was supposeed to be a win.
In Congress the entire nation gets to chime in.
The representatives of 29 states whose voters have banned gay marriage (and often civil union as well, as often pointedly refusing to recognize same sex unions from other states, and often passed those measures with 75-80% of the vote...)
Go ahead- let the DC measure go before Congress.
Take it to the Supreme Court.
A lot of people have an opinion.
They've been sitting on the sidelines,
"put us in- Coach!"
Take it to a national forum.
Give everyone a whack at it.
Find out what "winning" is;
and isn't...
(ps- when it goes to Congress Obama won't be able to play cute and give it the 'rope-a-dope'. The Republicans will make sure he knows his position will be hanging around his neck like a burning tire. You'll find out where Obama really stands on homosexuality.)
So far you've been able to cherry pick your battles; Vermont, Mass, Iowa Courts- good ol' liberal California was supposeed to be a win.
In Congress the entire nation gets to chime in.
The representatives of 29 states whose voters have banned gay marriage (and often civil union as well, as often pointedly refusing to recognize same sex unions from other states, and often passed those measures with 75-80% of the vote...)
Go ahead- let the DC measure go before Congress.
Take it to the Supreme Court.
A lot of people have an opinion.
They've been sitting on the sidelines,
"put us in- Coach!"
Take it to a national forum.
Give everyone a whack at it.
Find out what "winning" is;
and isn't...
(ps- when it goes to Congress Obama won't be able to play cute and give it the 'rope-a-dope'. The Republicans will make sure he knows his position will be hanging around his neck like a burning tire. You'll find out where Obama really stands on homosexuality.)
33
ugh, i'm so glad you can find a silver lining right now dan, because i'm just completely disgusted.
prop 8 stated clearly, 'only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized or valid in the state of California.' for the 'justices' to state that they'll continue to recognize the 18,000 while simultaneously upholding prop 8 is absolute nonsense. their bullshit argument is so full of holes you could squeeze curds through it. they couldn't be more full of shit if they were mucking out horse stalls.
*snarl, stomp, fume*
prop 8 stated clearly, 'only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized or valid in the state of California.' for the 'justices' to state that they'll continue to recognize the 18,000 while simultaneously upholding prop 8 is absolute nonsense. their bullshit argument is so full of holes you could squeeze curds through it. they couldn't be more full of shit if they were mucking out horse stalls.
*snarl, stomp, fume*
36
@22 on the slandering of "old" folks: I don't think it's exactly the same as talking about gay pedophiles. As far as I know, gay and straight people are about equally likely to be pedophiles. But statistically, old people are more likely to be against gay marriage: from fivethirtyeight.com:
"Support for gay marriage, however, is strongly generational. In a CBS news poll conducted last month, 64 percent of voters aged 18-45 supported either gay marriage or civil unions, but only 45 percent of voters aged 65 and up did."
But I still see why you don't like Dan to just lump together "old" people. 45% is quite a lot of equality-minded seniors. I know my in-laws (in their 70's) are strong voters for marriage equality. My own parents are pretty apathetic on this (and most!) issues, but if I call and badger them, they will vote the right way (not that marriage equality is likely to be on the ballot in TN any time soon).
"Support for gay marriage, however, is strongly generational. In a CBS news poll conducted last month, 64 percent of voters aged 18-45 supported either gay marriage or civil unions, but only 45 percent of voters aged 65 and up did."
But I still see why you don't like Dan to just lump together "old" people. 45% is quite a lot of equality-minded seniors. I know my in-laws (in their 70's) are strong voters for marriage equality. My own parents are pretty apathetic on this (and most!) issues, but if I call and badger them, they will vote the right way (not that marriage equality is likely to be on the ballot in TN any time soon).
37
It does seem that when the tide begins to shift the battles become harder. Life has given us so many examples of this, WW II after D-day and the process by which the metamorphized butterfly escapes it's chrysalis, etc. Keep your heads up, and keep fighting. I believe the tide is turning, I meet more straight allies amongst my peers, and my children's school had over 300 participants in the day of silence. Don't loose heart. My prayers, time, and pocketbook are with you all.
38
36,
I agree. My 64 year old mother proudly announced that she "canceled out" my 66 year old fathers vote on Prop 8 last November, and that she will happily do it again and again. And, in between the two of we are starting to wear my dad down.
I agree. My 64 year old mother proudly announced that she "canceled out" my 66 year old fathers vote on Prop 8 last November, and that she will happily do it again and again. And, in between the two of we are starting to wear my dad down.
39
@37
I totally know what you mean.
When I'm taking a dump I always find that last turd is the real bitch; hard as a brick and as big as a fist (oh, I'm turning myself on here...)
I totally know what you mean.
When I'm taking a dump I always find that last turd is the real bitch; hard as a brick and as big as a fist (oh, I'm turning myself on here...)
42
Hey, Mr. Poe, I understand your anger completely. But really: in the grand scheme of things, in the broader view, look how much has happened in our culture. I've already been a bridesmaid at a gay wedding. In a very awesome progressive Presbyterian church in NJ.
It will happen. & kudos to you, Dan, for taking the classy high road when writing about how things have come down. It's really easy to lose focus when you're just ragingly upset.
In my dreams, we all pick some weekend in summer & converge on Washington..make the Millennial Pride March look like practice. **sigh** I wonder if this most recent vote will spark the same type of spontaneous political action - ie, join the impact, & etc - that the last Prop 8 vote did? Do something good & useful w/ the angry?
It will happen. & kudos to you, Dan, for taking the classy high road when writing about how things have come down. It's really easy to lose focus when you're just ragingly upset.
In my dreams, we all pick some weekend in summer & converge on Washington..make the Millennial Pride March look like practice. **sigh** I wonder if this most recent vote will spark the same type of spontaneous political action - ie, join the impact, & etc - that the last Prop 8 vote did? Do something good & useful w/ the angry?
43
Here is a thought by the CA Supremes keeping the 18k marriages intact and upholding Prop 8 isn't that like a oxy-moron ruling - think about it. Upholding same sex marriages but defining marriage between a man and a woman - it is almost like they have set up a fight that this time can be won. And this time during the campaign show the same sex couples with families that are still legally married. And please do outreach to the Black and Latino churches not to take $$ from the Mormon church and preach accordingly to their congre-gay-tion.
44
Original Andrew @ 40:
The equal protection clause is in the US constitution, not the CA constitution. The arguments in this case were about the validity of Prop 8 under the CA constitution.
In any case, if you try to pin down the meaning of "equal protection" as an abstract legal principle, you quickly get hopelessly lost. Does it forbid the government from imposing a higher tax rate on rich people than it does on poor people? Okay, if it does allow that distinction, how do I decide what distinctions it doesn't allow?
The equal protection clause is in the US constitution, not the CA constitution. The arguments in this case were about the validity of Prop 8 under the CA constitution.
In any case, if you try to pin down the meaning of "equal protection" as an abstract legal principle, you quickly get hopelessly lost. Does it forbid the government from imposing a higher tax rate on rich people than it does on poor people? Okay, if it does allow that distinction, how do I decide what distinctions it doesn't allow?
45
The fact that the voters in a state like California would have voted this way I think is a wake up call for many. People can not take for granted that the liberties they deserve will be the liberties that others think they deserve. Freedom and equality (or some version of either) require vigilance to acquire and maintain and a lot of folks in California are realizing that right now - especially younger people.
I think Dan is right, and I'm looking forward to the rematch on Prop 8. The passing of Prop 8 will turn out to be a call to arms for people who value the dignity, respect, and freedom of others. I am a straight, white man who never takes for granted that the world is built around my "lifestyle", and that it's my responsibility to raise a voice when other people's basic human rights are at stake. Rights and responsibilities become more, not less, valuable when more of our brothers and sisters take them on. I'm happy that I'm confident and secure enough in myself that I am not threatened by other people sharing these rights and responsibilities.
Remember this - these battles are won not so much by destroying those that hate you, but by reminding those who are indifferent to you that they *are* you.
Bloodying a few bigoted noses sure does keep up the motivation though.
I think Dan is right, and I'm looking forward to the rematch on Prop 8. The passing of Prop 8 will turn out to be a call to arms for people who value the dignity, respect, and freedom of others. I am a straight, white man who never takes for granted that the world is built around my "lifestyle", and that it's my responsibility to raise a voice when other people's basic human rights are at stake. Rights and responsibilities become more, not less, valuable when more of our brothers and sisters take them on. I'm happy that I'm confident and secure enough in myself that I am not threatened by other people sharing these rights and responsibilities.
Remember this - these battles are won not so much by destroying those that hate you, but by reminding those who are indifferent to you that they *are* you.
Bloodying a few bigoted noses sure does keep up the motivation though.
46
"[T]he need for governmental incrementalism [is] an inappropriate justification for Charter violations. … [G]roups that have historically been the target of discrimination cannot be expected to wait patiently for the protection of their human dignity and equal rights while governments move toward reform one step at a time.”
R v. Vriend, Supreme Court of Canada
R v. Vriend, Supreme Court of Canada
47
"and the CA Supremes had an opportunity to reaffirm that ideal. They chose not to, they buckled,"
No, Dan. No, they didn't. They're bound to interpret what the CA state constitution actually says, in the context of past decisions, which they laid out at great length. They did their job. In doing so, they (again) pointed out the core of many of California's problems--its constitution is simply too easy to change with appeals to the mob. _Over 500_ amendments to it, since 1879! Their question was not whether discrimination is legal. Their question was only whether this proposition was legal. And it is.
But yes, we're winning. In spite of this decision, we're still winning. A favorable ruling, or a favorable vote yet to come in California doesn't change the fact we've got a crazy quilt of state laws. That can't stand. So we're still on tap for the big battle in Washington. This is as clear a 14th Amendment case as we've ever had.
I have no problem saying it now: we're going to win that one.
No, Dan. No, they didn't. They're bound to interpret what the CA state constitution actually says, in the context of past decisions, which they laid out at great length. They did their job. In doing so, they (again) pointed out the core of many of California's problems--its constitution is simply too easy to change with appeals to the mob. _Over 500_ amendments to it, since 1879! Their question was not whether discrimination is legal. Their question was only whether this proposition was legal. And it is.
But yes, we're winning. In spite of this decision, we're still winning. A favorable ruling, or a favorable vote yet to come in California doesn't change the fact we've got a crazy quilt of state laws. That can't stand. So we're still on tap for the big battle in Washington. This is as clear a 14th Amendment case as we've ever had.
I have no problem saying it now: we're going to win that one.
48
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always." - Mahatma Gandhi
49
My opinion, pt. 2
continued from http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Regarding the overturning of Prop 8, it all gets summed up with this blurb from the California State Supreme Court's statement:
In a sense, petitioners’ and the Attorney General’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. If the process for amending the Constitution is to be restricted — perhaps in the manner it was explicitly limited in an earlier version of our state Constitution, or as limited in the present-day constitutions of some of our sister states — this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their Constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative.
Their ruling to preserve existing marriages involves fancy footwork no less dramatic than the tapdance sequence in Chicago. They list several precedents how Prop 8 might not be applied retroactively, even going as far as noting in the absence of an express retroactivity provision, a statute will not be applied retroactively unless it is very clear from extrinsic sources that the Legislature or the voters must have intended a retroactive application. In this case, what was or wasn't very clear is subject to the personal opinions of our jurists; they had a lot of leeway.
The phrase that appears in Prop 8 (and its predecessor, Prop 22) Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. was chosen for its simplicity, and though it was presumed (even by me) to be regarded as "marriage" referring to the state of [a couple] being married, the court chose to interpret it instead to mean the act of creating a marriage [between a couple]. In those terms (and only in them) do are 18000 marriages in the interim between marriage cases and the election preserved.
I'm not yet sure how I feel about this, personally. The end results (marriages before Prop 8 are preserved) are desirable, but the means by which it was justified is shifty, and puts the court well in the realm of legislating from the bench. Not that this has ever slowed the other side down an iota, but since we're the good guys, I like to think we're above such tactics.
Still, this may the the most precarious situation for the opposition to gay marriage, and those that would deny minorities rights via legislation. A firefighter friend of mine notes that there's never a rule until there's a problem. We now have a problem with the ease by which the California constitution can be changed to discriminate against minorities. We now have incentive to create a rule.
I may append this as I read more of the statement, but I think I have the essentials down.
More...
continued from http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Regarding the overturning of Prop 8, it all gets summed up with this blurb from the California State Supreme Court's statement:
In a sense, petitioners’ and the Attorney General’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. If the process for amending the Constitution is to be restricted — perhaps in the manner it was explicitly limited in an earlier version of our state Constitution, or as limited in the present-day constitutions of some of our sister states — this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their Constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative.
Their ruling to preserve existing marriages involves fancy footwork no less dramatic than the tapdance sequence in Chicago. They list several precedents how Prop 8 might not be applied retroactively, even going as far as noting in the absence of an express retroactivity provision, a statute will not be applied retroactively unless it is very clear from extrinsic sources that the Legislature or the voters must have intended a retroactive application. In this case, what was or wasn't very clear is subject to the personal opinions of our jurists; they had a lot of leeway.
The phrase that appears in Prop 8 (and its predecessor, Prop 22) Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. was chosen for its simplicity, and though it was presumed (even by me) to be regarded as "marriage" referring to the state of [a couple] being married, the court chose to interpret it instead to mean the act of creating a marriage [between a couple]. In those terms (and only in them) do are 18000 marriages in the interim between marriage cases and the election preserved.
I'm not yet sure how I feel about this, personally. The end results (marriages before Prop 8 are preserved) are desirable, but the means by which it was justified is shifty, and puts the court well in the realm of legislating from the bench. Not that this has ever slowed the other side down an iota, but since we're the good guys, I like to think we're above such tactics.
Still, this may the the most precarious situation for the opposition to gay marriage, and those that would deny minorities rights via legislation. A firefighter friend of mine notes that there's never a rule until there's a problem. We now have a problem with the ease by which the California constitution can be changed to discriminate against minorities. We now have incentive to create a rule.
I may append this as I read more of the statement, but I think I have the essentials down.
50
Wow, looks like this time it was a majority of white people that decided to uphold this bigoted decision. You would think that they would know better since they are the least homophobic.
51
It seems to be a common misinterpretation of the role of the courts to determine whether or not law is just or fair, but, rather, whether law is acceptable within the parameters of the Constitution. Usually the devices by which justice and fairness are sustained are built into the constitution; this is the source of this confusion.
California doesn't have the protections we thought it had.
Our next step is to change this, not accuse the bench of being homophobic; they certainly weren't when they made the ruling regarding In re: marriages. The court did what it was supposed to do; it just didn't achieve the result we wanted.
California doesn't have the protections we thought it had.
Our next step is to change this, not accuse the bench of being homophobic; they certainly weren't when they made the ruling regarding In re: marriages. The court did what it was supposed to do; it just didn't achieve the result we wanted.
52
I was just saying that they are perceived as the least homophobic when it comes to race and that is what should have swayed their decision. Just like people were saying that blacks and Hispanics were the most homophobic and that was what swayed their voting for prop 8 at the time.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Slog Somehow Overlooked... by Dan Savage
-
VivaVulva Viagra! by Dan Savage -
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Feeling Sorry for Carrie Prejean by Dan Savage
-
Last Night's Colbert Report by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (52) RSS