Monday, June 29, 2009
Politics / Homo Marriage Equality in California
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM
The CA clusterfuck just keeps getting clusterfuckier.
[On Thursday the] judge will hear a preliminary motion seeking a temporary and permanent injunction against enforcement of Prop 8 on the grounds that the state constitutional amendment violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.The defendants are Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and the counties of Alameda and Los Angeles where the two couples live.
That's the straightforward part. Almost everything else is as unpredictable as a ride on a rickety Magic Mountain roller coaster.
Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger are refusing to defend Prop 8 in court, Ken Starr might jump in, big LGBT groups that initially opposed this lawsuit have signed on in support, and the judge could order an immediate suspension of Prop 8 on Thursday, instantly re-legalizing same-sex marriage in California—and the judge hearing this case is rumored to be gay. More at the Bilerico Project.
Share via
1
I love rollercoaster rides, and have fond memories of Magic Mountain. Reading that was like a rollercoaster ride, I think I need some tea.
2
You jumping in with your sex column credibility-commentary just adds the the clusterfuckery.
Why can't you see that?
Why can't you see that?
3
@2 given the outcomes available for marriage in CA, more chaos doesn't hurt, the worst outcome that could come from this is no gay marriages, which is exactly the status quo. maybe more craziness will shift the balance towards equality.
5
@2: would that be the same sex column credibility-commentary that you are taking the time to read and are giving enough credibility to comment on? If Dan's commentary is that pointless, ignore him.
6
I keep coming back to the word "straightforward" in that article.
Is it a clever play on words?
Or am I just looking for conspiracy in the mundane?...
Is it only a matter of time before THAT word gets dubbed offensive to the gay rights movement?
Is it a clever play on words?
Or am I just looking for conspiracy in the mundane?...
Is it only a matter of time before THAT word gets dubbed offensive to the gay rights movement?
7
Magic Mountain is cool, but Knotts Berry Farm is fun too.
That said, Disneyland is also nifty and they have beignets.
That said, Disneyland is also nifty and they have beignets.
8
I hope that this case does not get to the Supreme Court. Not yet.
If it does then we lose and the right of marriage equality will be set back a generation.
Also, now is not the time to try to overturn Prop 8 in CA. 2010 is not a good year to place this on the ballot. With so much at stake (Census and reapportionment coming up), CA gay right's advocates should be focused on electing a gay friendly Democratic Governor and legislature. 2012 will be a better year.
In 2010 nationwide, gay advocates should be focused on Maine, where a referendum may be on the ballot that would overturn that state's gay marriage law. If everyone in the country is sending money and energy to CA, then Maine's chances will be hurt.
Sometimes I think that gay marriage activists are fucking political amateurs.
If it does then we lose and the right of marriage equality will be set back a generation.
Also, now is not the time to try to overturn Prop 8 in CA. 2010 is not a good year to place this on the ballot. With so much at stake (Census and reapportionment coming up), CA gay right's advocates should be focused on electing a gay friendly Democratic Governor and legislature. 2012 will be a better year.
In 2010 nationwide, gay advocates should be focused on Maine, where a referendum may be on the ballot that would overturn that state's gay marriage law. If everyone in the country is sending money and energy to CA, then Maine's chances will be hurt.
Sometimes I think that gay marriage activists are fucking political amateurs.
9
I hope the judge isn't gay. Or that if he is, that he'll recluse himself.
You really don't need to open yourself for allegations of partisanship.
Fingers crossed.
You really don't need to open yourself for allegations of partisanship.
Fingers crossed.
11
Dan can't quit picking this scab, can he.
That, plus he likes being bitch-slapped around on this topic.
That, plus he likes being bitch-slapped around on this topic.
12
@8: You have to lose to win any game. At this point, we aren't even in play when it comes to the supreme court and marriage equality. They have never once made a consideration of GLBT marriage rights, they've only dismissed one case without consideration and that's proven to be even more damaging than any single loss could have been. The precedent has been set by the court: we don't exist. Even if they rule against us, they're acknowledging our existence and that's an important step forward.
If we don't engage the supreme court now, then when? Should we wait until 2024 for full marriage equality? Or how about 2016? When would be good for you?
If we don't engage the supreme court now, then when? Should we wait until 2024 for full marriage equality? Or how about 2016? When would be good for you?
13
Should straight judges recuse themselves from ruling on cases that involve heterosexual issues? Why are straight judges assumed to be unbiased, while a gay judge is automatically assumed to be so biased in favor of the LGBT community that he should recuse himself?
14
Umm, as a big time coaster fag, I just want to chime in that there are no "rickety" coasters at Sucks Flags Magic Mountain. You want an appropriately "looks to decrepit to ride" woodie, you have to come to the East Coast. The Psyclone was not and will never be the Cyclone!
15
@ 14 (Hi Brian! 'S'me, Drew!) I am eternally grateful to God that my time on this planet overlapped, however briefly, with the opportunity to ride the Cyclone at Coney Island. And there's still a pretty good wooden roller coaster at Dorney Park in Allentown, PA.
16
And this lawsuit strikes me as crafty and devious (they got a hearing before a gay judge???). I hope it works: I'm a huge fan of crafty and devious.
17
Crafty and devious is good, but when you have five activist neocon justices on the Supreme Court ... will it hold up?
18
Much to important to let pass. here is a link where Dan disparages gays talking about the superiority of gays with "malawi babies". At about 1:00. can't you just feel the discust for at childless gays who prefer slings to babies (yeah, yeah, Dan, we know all about your sling)?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2sIf_sVYuc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2sIf_sVYuc
19
A bit off topic, but has anyone read this somewhat amusing, but mostly laughable response to Dan's critique of Joshua Berman's profoundly ignorant article, which basically characterized gay marriage as an existential threat to the lives of women?
http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpries…
http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpries…
20
18:
You posted this a couple of times over the weekend. So, I watched it. I'm sorry that you feel hurt and/or betrayed by it. You have a right to your feelings. Still, I think your misunderstanding what was said, I don't hear any judgement on gays or slings. It's a comment about his life stage, he finds himself interacting and developing friendships with those who share his day to day reality. The common link being a shared reality, of being a spouse and/or a parent.
Best wishes.
You posted this a couple of times over the weekend. So, I watched it. I'm sorry that you feel hurt and/or betrayed by it. You have a right to your feelings. Still, I think your misunderstanding what was said, I don't hear any judgement on gays or slings. It's a comment about his life stage, he finds himself interacting and developing friendships with those who share his day to day reality. The common link being a shared reality, of being a spouse and/or a parent.
Best wishes.
21
Hmmm....the url seems to have been cut. Well, the absurd article can be found on belief.net under the title "How Women will be hurt by Gay Marriage: A Postcript".
25
When will these lawless Republican Governors and their AGs start following Obama's lead?... (Oh... Wait. Um. Vis-a-vers-a please.)
26
22
and the homeless.
and global warming.
and the starving children in Africa.
and people whose socks clash with their pants.
and the homeless.
and global warming.
and the starving children in Africa.
and people whose socks clash with their pants.
27
@12
It appears you do not know how the Supreme Court works.
If this case comes to them now, we lose. If we lose now it will be a generation before it will be revisited and before it will be reversed.
1896's "Plessy vs Ferguson" was not reversed until 1954's "Brown vs Board of Education". (segregation, separate but equal)
1883's "Pace Vs Alabama" was not reversed until 1967's "Loving vs Virginia". (allowing interracial marriage)
1986's "Bowers vs Hardwick" was not reversed until 2003's "Lawrence vs Texas" (allowing anal sex, sexual privacy)
With the Supreme Court, if you know you are most likely going to lose, you should not attempt the case.
I would wait until the makeup of the Court changes. If Obama wins re-election, he will most likely get three justices on there (throughout his two terms). While they may be just replacing "liberals" they will be younger and more likely supportive of gay rights. And who knows, he may get to replace a conservative justice.
In the meantime, I would focus on the states. Slowly, minds are changing and the more states that grant marriage equality, the better.
That is what gay rights' leaders have been doing and so far, it is working.
In fact, we ARE winning. Not only in the court of public opinion, not only with young people, not only in popular culture, but also politically as well.
Why change what has worked?
We could end up fucking up our successes.
It appears you do not know how the Supreme Court works.
If this case comes to them now, we lose. If we lose now it will be a generation before it will be revisited and before it will be reversed.
1896's "Plessy vs Ferguson" was not reversed until 1954's "Brown vs Board of Education". (segregation, separate but equal)
1883's "Pace Vs Alabama" was not reversed until 1967's "Loving vs Virginia". (allowing interracial marriage)
1986's "Bowers vs Hardwick" was not reversed until 2003's "Lawrence vs Texas" (allowing anal sex, sexual privacy)
With the Supreme Court, if you know you are most likely going to lose, you should not attempt the case.
I would wait until the makeup of the Court changes. If Obama wins re-election, he will most likely get three justices on there (throughout his two terms). While they may be just replacing "liberals" they will be younger and more likely supportive of gay rights. And who knows, he may get to replace a conservative justice.
In the meantime, I would focus on the states. Slowly, minds are changing and the more states that grant marriage equality, the better.
That is what gay rights' leaders have been doing and so far, it is working.
In fact, we ARE winning. Not only in the court of public opinion, not only with young people, not only in popular culture, but also politically as well.
Why change what has worked?
We could end up fucking up our successes.
32
@27: Baker v. Nelson. We already lost.
The SCOTUS determined there was no federal question in the case and dismissed it and subsequent cases it was applied to as a precedent determined that the common interpretation was that none of the standard saws like Loving v. Virginia could be applied to questions of marriage equality.
A case now, were it to reach the SCOTUS, would basically open up the court to questions of marriage equality. Its narrow scope helps, too, in that it does not tackle the case with any width, only a specificity that could easily overturn any standing statute regarding recognition of same-sex marriages, even those performed elsewhere.
A loss, however, would only be psychologically damaging. We are already at "0" and it's not possible to go anywhere but up.
The SCOTUS determined there was no federal question in the case and dismissed it and subsequent cases it was applied to as a precedent determined that the common interpretation was that none of the standard saws like Loving v. Virginia could be applied to questions of marriage equality.
A case now, were it to reach the SCOTUS, would basically open up the court to questions of marriage equality. Its narrow scope helps, too, in that it does not tackle the case with any width, only a specificity that could easily overturn any standing statute regarding recognition of same-sex marriages, even those performed elsewhere.
A loss, however, would only be psychologically damaging. We are already at "0" and it's not possible to go anywhere but up.
33
"If we don't engage the supreme court now, then when?"
When there's something considerably better than a 0% chance of winning. I don't want to see this issue go to the Court for a long time--it will be a loser on substantive due process and equal protection grounds. Leave it with the states until the composition of the Court changes (which, sadly, will not be soon).
And to add to @27, Bowers was overturned 17 years after being decided. That was a quick trip from precedent to the junk heap.
When there's something considerably better than a 0% chance of winning. I don't want to see this issue go to the Court for a long time--it will be a loser on substantive due process and equal protection grounds. Leave it with the states until the composition of the Court changes (which, sadly, will not be soon).
And to add to @27, Bowers was overturned 17 years after being decided. That was a quick trip from precedent to the junk heap.
34
Really, Kim the apologist and fender guitar pimp. There were a shit load of kids of gays parents at the seattle center. Perhaps Dan was one of those parents and DJ was one of the kids. I dunno.
35
34:
I don't get your point.
1) I don't see how addressing someone's concern and presenting an alternative perspecive is being an apologists. You're welcome to watch the clip and come to your own conclusion about it.
2) I play guitar, I don't sell them. So how am I a fender guitar pimp? I play a Martin as well, does that make me a Martin pimp, too?
3) Maybe, Dan and his kid were at the Seattle Center, I wouldn't know, but it sounds like it was fun. You'd have to ask him about it.
You're welcome to disagree with me.
I don't get your point.
1) I don't see how addressing someone's concern and presenting an alternative perspecive is being an apologists. You're welcome to watch the clip and come to your own conclusion about it.
2) I play guitar, I don't sell them. So how am I a fender guitar pimp? I play a Martin as well, does that make me a Martin pimp, too?
3) Maybe, Dan and his kid were at the Seattle Center, I wouldn't know, but it sounds like it was fun. You'd have to ask him about it.
You're welcome to disagree with me.
36
@33: I still can't see what we'd lose other than bragging rights, especially as the substance of the case narrows.
38
Beyond a harmful psychological effect on the pro-equality tribe, I feel that an adverse ruling at that level would empower the wrong side and, under the shelter of a Supreme Court ruling, make it more likely for legislators to vote against marriage equality. And don't you think that these resources--political, financial, human, social momentum--can be more effectively directed at winnable battles at the state level?
I take your point (or, what I interpret your point to be) that an adverse ruling would not compel states to act to ban same-sex marriage. But I don't see the upside to leading with the chin and forcing the Court to memorialize in caustic prose an invitation to discriminate. Maybe I'm wrong, and there would be a galvanizing effect. I hope so. But I just don't see it.
I take your point (or, what I interpret your point to be) that an adverse ruling would not compel states to act to ban same-sex marriage. But I don't see the upside to leading with the chin and forcing the Court to memorialize in caustic prose an invitation to discriminate. Maybe I'm wrong, and there would be a galvanizing effect. I hope so. But I just don't see it.
39
Obama and the US Justice Dept. could have refused to defend DOMA just like Arnold and Jerry are refusing to defend Prop 8.
Why is Obama being such a pussy-cat?
Arnold and Jerry could take political heat for their brave decision, but they're taking that brave decision anyway.
Why is Obama being such a pussy-cat?
Arnold and Jerry could take political heat for their brave decision, but they're taking that brave decision anyway.
40
I read this on the Huffington Post. It may be all lies, it might turn out to be true, but all this noise is having an effect. Keep it up, and you might get something done.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/29…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/29…
41
Judge Walker is a quirky one, but he argued the Gay Olympics case against the gays, so if he is gay himself, he was a hell of a closet case.
Considering Romer and Lawrence, you can't really characterize Kennedy as a neo-con. He is far more liberal on the issue than the vast majority of people his age, and I would not be surprised if Kennedy voted to strike down Prop 8. Scalia predicted Romer and Lawrence would lead to same-sex marriage in his dissents, and the majority, Kennedy especially, didn't seem particularly bothered by this "warning."
Plus, Souter's "confirmed bachelorship" always raised my eyebrows.
Considering Romer and Lawrence, you can't really characterize Kennedy as a neo-con. He is far more liberal on the issue than the vast majority of people his age, and I would not be surprised if Kennedy voted to strike down Prop 8. Scalia predicted Romer and Lawrence would lead to same-sex marriage in his dissents, and the majority, Kennedy especially, didn't seem particularly bothered by this "warning."
Plus, Souter's "confirmed bachelorship" always raised my eyebrows.
42
I'd say go for it. If the SCOTUS slaps us, we're slapped for my lifetime and I can move on. To Canada, most likely.
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
PETA vs. Thanksgiving by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
-
Levi Johnston's Butt by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (42) RSS