One of the standard arguments against same sex marriage is that it somehow threatens “traditional” marriage. In my previous post I said that to date no one had been able to provide a rational explanation of how that threat works. Well, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker has the same concern. And to nobody’s surprise, the attorney for the group that sponsored California’s Prop 8 couldn’t provide any evidence to back up his claim. “I don’t know. I don’t know,” exclaimed lawyer Cooper.
Let the evidence be heard. I’m sure there will be some “independent” studies that will attempt to demonstrate that somehow same sex marriage is the threat the right wants to convince us of. But I suspect their studies will be as independent as the one Price Waterhouse Cooper did at the behest of the health care lobby — one that ultimately even Price had to admit was flawed because of the limitations placed on them. So they distanced themselves from it to retain some shred of credibility. Hopefully, Judge Vaughn and ultimately the Supreme Court justices will be able to separate fear from reason.
To provide some background, several years ago, San Francisco began performing same sex marriages — clearly an attempt to bring the issue to the courts. The California Supreme Court ruled that the issue had to be decided by the state not at the city level. It later ruled that same sex marriage was legal in California. That prompted the opponents of same sex marriage to sponsor an amendment to the state constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Following passage of the amendment (Proposition 8), the court chose not to overturn it on the narrow grounds that it didn’t represent a “major” change under California law, thus requiring legislative initiation. Supporters of gay rights have now taken the issue to the Federal Courts, where the challenge is based on the “equal protection” clause.
One might ask why the Supreme Court of California seems to be of two minds on this issue. The answer is that in California, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor but retention is subject to popular vote. This situation certainly limits their independence… In the past, a Chief Justice was unseated for her opposition to the death penalty. California is definitely a purple state. The urban and coastal areas tend to be more liberal while the interior and rural areas are more conservative. Additionally, California’s initiative process allows the people to vote on issues that would be confined to legislative action in other states. And Californians, like people in every other state, can be persuaded to vote their fears rather than their hopes, their better angels.
It is up to our judicial system to look beyond the fears, beyond the narrowness of mind to look at the larger issue involved — that of equality. It’s really very simple, although some people try to use fear to try to confuse us. Remember, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. To date, when judges and justices — even ones appointed by Republican presidents — have ruled in favor of equality and against discrimination, the cry has been heard throughout the land that they are those nasty judicial activists, legislating from the bench. One can only wonder how much equality would exist were the rabble to have its way. So, what we need is judges and justices with sufficient spine to make the Constitution serve us all, to live up to the idea that we were all created equal. Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separate is inherently not equal. While the issue at hand was segregated schools, the principle is the same.
The battle for equality has already taken a long time. It may take longer. But it will be won. When our schools became more integrated a generation ago, those kids learned that they had far more in common that they had previously thought. We are all the better for it, despite the tensions that still exist in many communities. Most of us now have friends of various races. That is a big change from my parents’ circle of friends. A similar generational shift is occurring relative to gay rights.
There is an understandable impatience with the pace of progress. It is painfully slow. And those who oppose gay rights use fear in abundance to try to persuade us. Remember, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. For those who are impatient that President Obama has not yet overturned Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, I would ask them to reconsider any decisions to pull back, to criticize how he’s holding the mop. Clearly, the state of the economy has had to be at the top of his priorities. And he views health care reform as critical to an economic recovery. Those two things affect each and every one of us –both straight and gay. Wouldn’t we want him to place those at the top of his agenda? Well, the economy is beginning to recover, and health care reform is wending its way through Congress, albeit progress is painfully slow on both fronts. I recall Candidate Obama reminding us that we must be the change we want. We must not become discouraged at the pace of progress, even though we would prefer greater change and faster change. We must not opt out. We must not sit back and complain. We must work harder. We must write our representatives at all levels. We must lobby them as hard as those who want the status quo to continue. Else we have nobody else to blame for failure. We worked hard for Obama’s election. We must keep working to overcome the voices of intolerance.
