Having watched the court proceedings on television, I was pretty certain that the California Supreme Court was going to uphold Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to overturn an earlier court ruling allowing gay couples the freedom to marry.
Still, knowing that a punch to the gut is coming does not make it hurt any less. The 6-1 ruling was degrading, humiliating and a shameful day that will live in infamy. The decision upheld tyranny of the majority and promoted the idiotic idea of mob rule.
What next?
Can the voters of California now decide whether I can eat bacon and eggs for breakfast? Are they able to choose if I can own a cat or a dog? May they regulate my weight or pick what career I choose?
These are serious questions. The fact is, banning my potential marriage is more an imposition and hardship than if the voters had chosen to enact the above examples. Any non-biased person would agree that the idea of the public banning the possibility of their marriage would be both invasive and traumatizing. Yet, the voters of California, backed by the Supreme Court, upheld this Orwellian idea.
Really, what are the limits to such insanity? Are we unique individuals with inalienable rights or public property with provisional rights granted or eliminated by the whims of the fickle electorate?
In his dissent, Justice Carlos Moreno was corr
ect to write, “Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, by wrenching minority rights away from judicial protection and subjecting them instead to a majority vote, attacks the very core of the equal protection principle.”
There are now calls from gay and lesbian leaders to place the marriage question back on the ballot in California. The competitive side of me says, “bring it on, let’s win.” But, another side believes that the gay and lesbian community should simply boycott all votes relating to rights — and take our outrage to the streets and the halls of Congress. After all, why are we the only minority in the history of this nation that has had to explicitly win public approval for our most basic needs?
Hell, if African-Americans had been forced to win equality through referendum they’d still be drinking out of separate water fountains in the South. Yet, we are routinely forced to degrade our humanity and grovel to voters, who smugly sit on the throne, judging whether we are worthy to visit our ailing spouses (scratch that, we are now partners, again) in their hospital beds.
The only silver lining is that the very act of fighting has compelled more people to “come out” — thus eroding the stigma of homosexuality. Recent public opinion polls have reflected this shift, with supporters of marriage equality reaching more than 40 percent. Demographic trends are also favorable, with younger voters embracing the freedom to marry.
No doubt, anti-gay forces are celebrating today’s ruling as a major victory. Still, the court’s ruling upholding the same-sex marriages that already took place in California must be disconcerting. If the existence of 18,000 gay married couples did not cause God to plunge California into the ocean, why would 180,000 make a difference? Our opponents have a real messaging problem that will only deepen, as more Californians are introduced to these couples.

The “Lucky 18,000″ also creates the existence of a new caste system. At the top of the hierarchy are straight married couples that receive state and federal benefits. The next rung down, we have legally married gay couples who receive state benefits. Then, of course, we have the untouchables, who receive state domestic partnerships as a result of their inferior status. It seems that until gay couples can tie the knot, the judicial system will be tied up in knots over these supposedly “separate but equal” arrangements. And, I’m confident the public will eventually see the current reality as inherently unfair.
At a rally in New York in response to the ruling, I joined thousands of protesters who turned their disappointment into determination and pain into progress. Our movement is resilient and we understand that this is merely a speed bump that will not be a deterrent from ultimate victory.
I am further encouraged by the hoards of young activists who joined me at the Union Square demonstration. Mobilized by a sense of injustice and organized through the Internet, they may be the first generation fully supported by their peers. By the time they attend their college reunions, state sanctioned discrimination will be a distant memory, like homework and drinking games. Unfortunately, that day has yet to arrive, and gay people of all ages are experiencing a nasty hangover from the California Supreme Court’s egregious ruling.
Tags: California, marriage, Proposition 87 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL






We’re just sick over this despite the fact that our marriage is still valid. The fight isn’t over by a long shot, but we’re currently quite bloodied.
Comment by Buffy — May 27, 2009 @ 1:00 am
I take some solace in knowing that our advocates are upset about this ruling too.
Personally, I know my social-justice cousins are supportive of me, and I’m sure they’re as mortified as I am. Really, one of them has said they won’t get married until we all can (not that I’m going to hold her to it :).
Comment by Emproph — May 27, 2009 @ 6:17 am
Very articulate Wayne… I live in MA and am able to and have gotten married in 2004. I am so angry at this “vote” on equality, what do you suggest those of us do? I have limited resources and can’t march in CA for rights.
Comment by Ron — May 28, 2009 @ 6:53 am
My debate against Proposition 8 is this: The opponents of gay marriage believe it is okay for the majority to decide whether gay marriage should be legal or not. But realistically speaking, the majority does not have the right to force their beliefs on the minority.
It’s like eating liver. How many people eat liver? It’s probably a minority. But if you were to consider putting it up for ballot whether liver should be legal or not, most likely people would say, “Why? What’s the need? If you don’t like liver don’t eat it.” It’s logical. Make eating liver legal, and if you don’t like it, just don’t eat it. Plain and simple.
Same thing here, you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex.
Gay marriage advocates are NOT pushing their way on society. If they were, then they would be trying to fight to make it to where the ONLY form of valid unions would be same sex marriage. They’re not. There trying to legalize same-sex marriage along WITH heterosexual marriage. Opponents of gay marriage on the other hand, they are trying to make it to where the only form of valid unions are heterosexual marriage.
So that’s why it’s safe to say that they are forcing their way on society, while we’re not. We’re just trying to make the OPTION of marrying the same sex. No one on our side said you have to marry a member of the same sex. THEY on the other hand ARE saying you have to marry a member of the opposite sex.
So in the end, that’s why we’re gonna win. Because our side is more fair.
Comment by James — May 29, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
The only people legally bound by Prop 8 are those who prepare official state documents, it seems to me. Gay couples with domestic partnerships can refer to themselves as married, and so can their friends and family. Newspapers could use the M-word when referring gays with DPs, and who could stop them? Companies could use the M-word on many employment forms. Retail advertisements could be targeted to married gay couples. So the M-word could permeate the culture in common usage, and no one could force it to stop.
Eventually the state would just look stupid still denying the use of a word that was in common usage throughout the culture.
Comment by Richard Rush — May 29, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
Richard Rush,
Sounds like a good idea. If only EVERY state had domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and if only employers, etc did not only want to see the word “marriage”.
I live in New Jersey, and we got Civil Unions here and in the past whenever I applied for a job and put down that I got a Civil Union, they said, “No that’s not good enough, we want to see the word ‘married’”.
I would of course have absolutely NO problem with making it to where same-sex unions had only domestic partnerships and Civil Unions as long as the DP or CU had ALL of the rights and benefits of marriage(Federal AND State)and people respected it AS MUCH as an actual Marriage.
But wording doesn’t really matter. If making DP’s and/or CU’s the same as Marriage, then why not just call it marriage for same-sex couples as well? You ask us why we should have a problem with the wording, but what about you? Why do you have a problem with the wording?
Comment by James — May 30, 2009 @ 1:21 am
James,
I guess my only point was that we don’t have to allow the reach of Prop 8 to extend beyond the situations where it is enforceable by law.
Our opponents ask why we can’t just be happy with DP or CU designation, as long as they provide the same provisions as marriage. The irony is that they, via money spent and screaming, provide all the evidence that we can never be equal without the M-word. But the word can be used in the culture, and there isn’t any legal action they can take to stop it.
Comment by Richard Rush — May 30, 2009 @ 9:49 am