Mar 13
AndrewPolitics and Nation, Society and Culture gay marriage, State Government
Same-sex marriage advocates are holding their breath as the California high court weighs the decision whether to overturn a state ban of same-sex marriage that voters approved last November. The same court, by a vote of 4-3, legalized same-sex marriage last year when it was held that a prohibition against gay marriage was a civil rights violation.
Proposition 8, which received 52% of the vote on the November ballot, effectively banned same-sex marriage in a constitutional amendment, but only after approximately 18,000 same-sex couples were married in the state under the court’s ruling. Advocates are attempting to overturn Proposition 8 by arguing that the effect on the state’s constitution is so extreme that it amounts to a constitutional revision. If the court concedes their argument, then by law, the legislature should have voted and approved the Proposition before it appeared on the ballot (and by extension, that would invalidate the ban itself).
Same-sex marriage advocates are going to lose in California. (Though for what it’s worth, the court has 90 days from the March 5th hearing to deliberate on the issue). The last time the high court weighed in on gay marriage, they were ruling on a civil rights issue. This time, however, the civil rights of homosexuals is a peripheral matter. Advocates will have a hard time meeting the high threshold of reasoning to show that Proposition 8 is really a constitutional revision instead of an amendment. For the court to hold to that reasoning would severely strain the state’s electoral process by questioning its legitimacy.
The political strategy by those advocating for the ban was fucking brilliant. They have thrown the weight and power of the majority of the voting public behind the ban. Against that, same-sex marriage advocates have few options. Bringing the civil rights issue back to the fore is unlikely to sway the court since this is largely a matter of how California’s election process works. Outside the courtroom, advocates are arguing that this is both a matter of how California’s constitution can be rewritten and whether civil rights are being violated in the process of the rewriting. But the courts are not beholden to address the second matter, particularly if they eventually hold, as is expected, that California voters have the right to amend the state’s constitution exactly as they did.
The saving grace appears to be that the court has shown little inclination to retroactively apply the same-sex marriage ban to the marriages that took place before the Proposition was voted on. The court seems disinclined to punish them for opting to get married when it was legal to do so, despite an argument by the ban’s political constituency that those marriages will be left in limbo otherwise. This could give equal rights advocates a small wedge with which to continue to push for equality and gay rights within the state.
Dec 10
JeremySociety and Culture day without a gay, gay marriage, gay rights, protest, volunteerism
Today, December 10, 2008, is being hailed by gay rights advocates as “Day Without a Gay.” Why? Because it rhymes and it’s kinda catchy. In all seriousness, today is also International Human Rights today and it’s being used as an opportunity to call attention to the anti-gay state initiatives that recently passed in California, Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida along with the continuing lack of recognition for gay rights in most states. It’s sort of like a sick out, but instead it’s a gay out. All over the country, gay men and women (along with every alternative label you can imagine) have called into work gay. Lest you think this is a freebie day off, those who participate in the protest are being asked to volunteer their time at gay-friendly (or at least neutral) non-profits which always need another hand or twelve. Basically, gay people are standing up and saying “You deprive me of basic human rights every day, so for just one day, I’m depriving you of my service.”
It sounds like a pretty cool idea in principle. In practice, I’m not sure how many men and women are actually doing it. I’m clearly not — I’m sitting at my desk doing both my regular day job and my writing job here. I, in fact, did consider taking part in the day. Then I realized that if all the gays and lesbians where I worked called out gay, the place would shut down for a day. Okay, not really, but pretty close and there might be some mission-critical elements that went undone for a day. Of course, maybe I work somewhere unusual: two out of seven senior executives are gay and another five or so department heads, let alone the individual faculty and staff. Then again, maybe working in such a gay-positive environment and living in a generally gay-friendly state makes me complacent and maybe that’s why I’m not participating. But I’m not sure that explains the fact that I don’t, offhand, know of anyone participating today.
Volunteer opportunities, along with general information, are listed at the website daywithoutagay.org. In all honesty, though, I was disheartened to see only three volunteer opportunities listed for Massachusetts. Heck, I’m sure there are more than three GLBT organizations in the state, let alone all the other groups that could use some help. A quick search shows that most states are in similar or worse shape, except maybe California. Really, I’m pretty surprised by that given that Day Without a Gay was not a left-field thing. I saw sporadic articles about it across the internet over the past month. If I found it without even paying attention, I can’t see how this protest opportunity could not have easily come to the attention of many more non-profits that could have posted themselves on the website and received some benefit today.
Maybe I should have done this. Maybe I should have called my boss this morning and said “I’m calling in gay. I’m going to deprive you of my services for a day and offer them for free to someone who really needs them.” But would it work? (I don’t think anyone even noticed that I was out sick yesterday.) I think passive resistance protest is too…well…passive for me. I’d rather go to a rally where the impact of thousands of people can be seen by sheer volume if nothing else than try to make quiet waves. I’m not disparaging the idea, but I don’t think it’s the right one for me.
Maybe this article is the way I turn it around and make it work for me. By showing up to work (and let’s face it, I haven’t been so prolific with the writing lately), I got you to read this article. That reminded you that there are people fighting for equal recognition under the law. Whether you meant to or not, I got you to spend a day with a gay. That’s how I’ve made my difference.
Nov 24
JeremySociety and Culture Gay, gay marriage
Question: What is really behind the push to ban gay marriage?
Answer: Dear Gentle Reader,
An excellent question and elegantly phrased. Many would have asked “who” rather than “what,” but I think you have, in fact, hit the nail on the head. To answer your question, jealousy is behind the push to ban gay marriage. Basically, they see me, they hatin’ on me because my lifestyle is fabulous.
I have a spacious, well-decorated apartment, a new car, two flat screen TVs and a Masters degree I didn’t go into debt for. I can eat out pretty much whenever I want, and when I don’t eat out, I can afford to buy name brand and even organic foods. I have leisure time and I can jet off for a weekend’s escapade on a whim. If I shop at a discount store, it’s because I want to, not have to.
Now, those who oppose my right to get married basically fall into one group (which is why I’m assuming you didn’t ask who): crazy, right-wing, psycho-religious fundies. If you’re wondering how I define that term, you might be a crazy, right-wing, psychoreligious fundy if you can quote any section of the Christian Bible chapter and verse. These people are generally not allowed by their beliefs to use birth control, not that they would be responsible enough to in any case. So where does the money go and why can’t they afford a lifestyle like mine? To all those dozens and dozens of children they each have, of course. They must feed, clothe, and buy ridiculous toys for them, while I remain unencumbered. (By the way, the reason the same people also don’t want us to adopt is that they are afraid that if we get the tax deductions for having children, too, then their welfare check will go down.)
Well, that and the fear of all the wild buttsex. The women are afraid their men will want it and the men are afraid their women will want to turn the tables on them!
Until next time!
Nov 09
JeremyPolitics and Nation, Society and Culture california, gay marriage, prop 8, proposition 8, yes we can
There has been much rejoicing in the past few days on the part of the socially and politically liberal with the election of Barack Obama as US president. Everywhere I go, there seems to be a renewed sense of hope so strong it even seems to infect those who wished for a different outcome. It’s worthwhile to remember, though, that there are other outcomes of this year’s elections that the same people cannot look at with the same joy. While the nationally the voters may have said “Yes We Can,” the voters of California told many of its citizens “No You Can’t” with the passage of Proposition 8 against gay marriage in that state, along with voters in Florida and Arizona who approved similar bans and those in Arkansas who approved a ban on gay couples adopting children.
The success of Prop 8 by half a million votes is a very real setback for gays and lesbians and the ongoing fight for equality. California was one of only three states in which gay marriage has been legally sanctioned; now only Massachusetts and Connecticut remain. Frankly, its passage has also been a nasty surprise to all of us who think of California as the veritable home of liberalism, unlike passage of those measures in other states which were a foregone conclusion. While I heard concerns from friends in California before the election, I (and many others outside that state) didn’t pay enough attention to really get that Prop 8′s passage was a potential reality. Honestly, I chalked it up to something along the lines of Question 1 in Massachusetts, which I knew would attract some support, but never nearly enough to pass. Sometimes, however, the voters surprise me.
All of this is enough to remind me of what the political state of this country really is. Looking around at all those acolytes of “Yes We Can,” I want to remind them that even our President-elect has said “No You Can’t” to that same population of people. While it may be political suicide to declare support for (or even indifference to) gay marriage, it is still a disappointment that the most vocally liberal major politician elected in our generation can’t even find a way to defer the question. Instead, even Barack Obama has quite clearly and in no uncertain terms told us that he does not support the right of gays to marry. Despite this, I hear many of my friends rationalizing his position away by saying “Well, he HAS to say that.” While this may be sad, it is also a reality check reminding us how far there really is to go yet.
However, if this is really the case, where can we find hope that things will change someday? For me, I look to my friends. For the past week, I would venture to say that Prop 8 has probably been the second most discussed issue among my friends on Facebook. Given the kind of stuff I write about here, maybe that doesn’t surprise you, especially if you assume that my friends list is made up primarily of gay men. That assumption, however, would be grossly inaccurate, as would any assumption that it’s the gay men and women who have been discussing it the most. No, the place where I find my hope for change is in the number of straight friends who are absolutely outraged by this legislation. Their discussion has met or exceeded that of my gay friends, the population actually directly impacted. Their expressed disapproval does not seem to be directly on the behalf of others, despite the fact that nearly everyone these days has a gay friend, relative, or colleague; rather, it is a straightforward belief in social equality.
In expressing his disappointment, a (straight Republican) friend said to me a few days ago, “I don’t care who wants to get married as long as they are subject to all the rights and responsibilities I am, so that if his husband cheats on him, he gets the house in the divorce.” Listening to him made me realize how proud I am to have friends who are willing to stand up for others, something we don’t see enough of in our increasingly ego-driven, self-centered society. They give me hope that as my own generation ages and slowly wrestles the reigns of authority from those who came before, progress will be made in our lifetimes. More than that, this experience has also made me understand that “Yes We Can” is not a motto that is the sole province of one politician’s campaign, but rather a reminder that grassroots organizing can and does work to effect change. And while the thousands of protesters who spilled into the streets of California’s major cities this weekend might be viewed as too little, too late, perhaps this hateful experience has reminded them too. Just maybe, this very loss has brought the hope of change back to us all.
Oct 10
JeremyPolitics and Nation, Relationships, Society and Culture gay marriage, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health
Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled today to legalize same-sex marriage in that state, joining neighboring Massachusetts and distant California. The state has an existing civil unions law, but eight couples sued on the basis that the law was inherently discriminatory and set up inequality for a minority group. Four of Connecticut’s seven supreme court justices agreed with that argument, stating that the state of Connecticut “failed to establish adequate reason to justify the statutory ban on same sex marriage.”
To give Connecticut its due, it was the first state to enact civil unions on its own, without a court-order, but stopped shy of recognizing full marriage rights. So far, all three states that have legalized gay marriage have done so through the court system and not through legislation. In Massachusetts counter-legislation has failed abysmally on a number of occasions, affirming legislators’ tacit support.
A full copy of the decision is available here (Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health).
Jul 29
JeremyPolitics and Nation, Relationships, Society and Culture gay marriage, marriage equality, massachusetts
The Massachusetts House today passed a repeal of a 1913 law that effectively prevented out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004. This move followed a previous vote by the state Senate to repeal the law and Governor Deval Patrick has indicated that he will sign the measure. The repeal passed by a wide margin, 118 to 35, after only 45 minutes of debate.
The archaic law was rooted in turn-of-the-century attempts to keep interracial couples from marrying. It barred nuptials for any visiting couple who could not be legally wed in their home state and was passed at a time when many other states banned interracial marriage. The little known law was resurrected in 2004 by then-Governor Mitt Romney, seeking to attenuate the effects of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Goodridge decision that allowed same-sex weddings.
With the repeal, Massachusetts is expected to experience a boom in the destination wedding industry as it hosts gay couples from all over the country. California is currently the only other state in which gay couples can marry.
Older Entries
RSS
