Jason R. Finley ([info]uniace) wrote,
@ 2008-05-16 12:31:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Share this!  Next Entry
California legalizes gay marriage!
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court (almost entirely Republican-appointed) found that the state's constitution, as it already exists, must be interpreted as granting same-sex couples the right to marriages that are recognized and protected by the state.

Governator Arnold (whose autograph I've got on my UCLA diploma), who has previously vetoed two legislative attempts to legalize gay marriage, has said that he will respect and uphold the court's ruling, and furthermore that he will "not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling." This means that even a new ballot measure (like the one passed, to the shame and dismay of many, by 60% of the Californians who voted in 2000) would be vanishingly unlikely to revoke gay marriage, even if it managed to garner enough votes to pass (which I doubt it would, now in 2008). Finally, this ruling cannot be taken to federal courts, as it is a state matter. Thus: legal gay marriage in California is here to stay.

I can't rightly say how completely awesome this is.
Or how proud I am of my home state, and how happy I am for the joy and validation this brings to so many loving same-sex couples in California, and everywhere, for surely this will add irreversible momentum to the acceptance of gay marriage.
High fives all around!



(1 comment) - (Post a new comment)


[info]uniace
2008-05-17 04:34 am UTC (link)
It seems I was premature in concluding that there was little or no threat to gay marriage from a popular vote. Looks like there will likely be a decisive initiative on the ballot in November. (It's too bad I'm now registered in Illinois.) I only hope that things will go better than they did in 2000.

It still stands that this is a watershed.

Slate.com, as usual, has good analyses.

Emily Bazelon
http://www.slate.com/id/2191525/
It's worth noting that society hasn't collapsed in Massachusetts since it legalized same-sex marriage in 2003. "The lesson that same-sex marriage proponents draw from Massachusetts is that once people see gay couples quietly going about their business, mowing their lawns and dropping their kids off at school, they learn to shrug." Bazelon also comments on the prospects of the critical November ballot initiative that will almost certainly take place.

Legal commentary on the immense importance of the ruling, and comparisons to the 2003 ruling by Massachusetts
Kenji Yoshino
http://www.slate.com/id/2191530/

Legal commentary:
Dahlia Lithwick
http://www.slate.com/id/2191500/pagenum/all/#page_start
The argument that the court ruling is "activist" is unreasoned and simply unsupported by the actual text of the ruling.

By William Saletan
http://www.slate.com/id/2191504/pagenum/all/#page_start
http://www.slate.com/id/2138482/
Gives good thoughtful commentary from the human nature (scientific) point view. Same-sex partnerships are NOT equivalent to polygamy, because of how deeply sexual jealousy (and thus strong motivation for committed monogamy) is entrenched in our evolutionary roots. Also gives opinion on why the move toward acceptance of gay marriage may in fact precede a shift toward a more reasoned reconsideration of other things long-considered to be taboo just because they're taboo, or based on assumptions that may or may not be true (but that we can gather empirical data to test).

The argument that kids get screwed up by having two same-sex parents (on average more than they get screwed up by having two opposite-sex parents)? Unsupported by the evidence.
http://www.slate.com/id/2156033/pagenum/all/#page_start
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstspec.html

Finally, I am sure we will again see the argument that marriage is exclusively a status to be granted by a supernatural entity (e.g., the god(s) worshipped by any of a variety of religions), and that the will of said supernatural entity is that this special status should not be granted to same-sex couples (e.g., based on interpretations of various versions of sacred texts, believed to be descended from direct communication with the entity).

This argument is inane and irrelevant.

Religious groups already have the right to exclude anyone they want. (Maybe they need to come up with a new word beside "marriage" for the religiously-based status that they want to be able to control.) Making marriage gender-neutral is about equal protection, benefits, and recognition for committed same-sex couples by the GOVERNMENT, not by religious groups (or the respective supernatural entities in which they believe). And thankfully, separation of church and state is one of the bedrock principles on which the United States is founded.

What's more, recognition by the government is likely to be a herald for broader social/cultural acceptance of people who happen to be gay. It's worth reading this brief post by Massachusetts journalist E.J. Graff (who is a lesbian), about how the legalization of gay marriage has resulted in so many people no longer feeling (or being treated) like second-class citizens:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/05/15/marriage-in-california.aspx
excerpt: "Two women or two men who look like they are together get treated openly as a couple—at restaurants or shops—in a way that feels simply honest and dignified. It's a complete transformation from my youth, when the possibility of violence always simmered nearby, when shocking comments could flow at any minute."

(Reply to this)


(1 comment) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Log in with OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…