Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[yovargas]

To me, full support for gay rights does mean supporting gay equality in your church or your school or your country club or your sports team.

I don't really like phrasing it like that because, at least in my views, "rights" is mostly a legal term.

[Jnyusa]

However, I don't think they can claim they fully support gay rights.

Yes, I agree with this.

However, I think that members of those churches who support gay equality should search their consciences re: religious inclusion of gay people.

Yes, I agree with this as well, very strongly in fact. Those of us who believe in gay rights, or racial rights, or religious rights, have the obligation to argue our position within our own churches, synagogues and any other institutions where our voice will be heard and perhaps heeded.

eta: or "equality" if you prefer that term, yov. I think the point is that we have an obligation to carry our beliefs into those institutions where we have influence.

[Primula Baggins]

That is happening in churches all over the place right now. It happened in ours last year, which led to the statement I linked to.

[nerdanel]

This is the scene I described earlier. I'm one of the oh-so-few people who accepted city officials' invitation to stand on the steps beyond the Mayor and other speakers. Although you can't see it, there are two other levels looking down on the rotunda, and there were people crowded around each, looking down. It was really an incredible moment, right where it all began.

[Primula Baggins]

[Jnyusa]

Great picture, nel! You're a part of official HERSTORY!

[Jnyusa]

eta ... I just now read an article about this carried by yahoo (which promptly disappeared after I had read it) and realized that the counter-move being threatened is a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I know you guys were talking about this earlier, but it didn't really penetrate my brain as an actual strategy that had already been announced. There was a time when I possessed a listing of the requirements for state constitutional amendments for each state, but I no longer have that. How difficult is it for such a proposal to get on a ballot in CA?

[Inanna]

Awesome nel. After years and years, you will be saying "I was there".

[Faramond]

Jn-

It's probably going to make the ballot, from my understanding. The supporters claim they've obtained 1.1 million signatures. They needed about 0.7 million. There was apparently a big counter-signing movement as well, where people would go to the same places the signature gatherers went and tried to talk people into not signing.

I've been trying to find out how much the amendment would need to pass by to become law. I think it might be just 50%, which seems low. If it's two-thirds or something then it has no shot of passing. But if only a bare majority is needed I think it will be very close, based on recent polls and the results of the 2000 ballot measure which passed with about 60%. If the amendment passes then it's game over for gay marriage, unfortunately. I think.

[Faramond]

Okay, I found something from a website in favor of the amendment:

Step 1: The official proponents of the ProtectMarriage Amendment provide an official petition proposing the amendment to the voters. The campaign must then obtain over 700,000 valid signatures of registered California voters within just 150 days after the Attorney General issues the Official Title and Summary of the measure.
Step 2: When all the signatures have been gathered, the official proponents submit the signatures gathered in each county to the local elections official to verify the number of valid signatures.
Step 3: Local elections officials report the total number of verified signatures to the Secretary of State. If there are enough valid signatures, the Secretary of State puts the amendment on the next statewide election ballot for a vote.
Step 4: If the amendment receives more than 50% of the vote, it becomes part of the state constitution immediately.

Here is the FAQ where I took this from:
http://www.protectmarriage.com/FAQ.php

You can get to the main website from that page as well.

So yeah, just 50% is needed. My guess right now is that it will get 49% and the amendment will just come up short. I suppose there is a chance that not enough of the signatures will be verified.

[nerdanel]

As far as I know, Faramond's understanding is correct (except I'd thought that the number they needed was higher - 1 or 1.1 million, not sure.) I'll check when I have a chance, but frankly, I'm sure they could easily get whatever number they needed - it was comparatively small relative to the number of voters in the state. It is, unfortunately, a 50 percent threshold state as most are; contrast Florida, which faces the same fight but a 60 percent requirement (which would be a death knell requirement in CA, as the state is split down the center.)

This means that the California Supreme Court will shortly face another crucial decision - whether to grant opponents' request for a stay until the November election. My instinct is that they will NOT grant a stay; if they were disposed to do so, they would automatically have stayed this ruling. Given the extremely strong, principled language of the majority opinion, I have a hard time believing that four justices who believe so strongly that a constitutional violation has been occurring - would allow the violation to persist for six more months on the chance that voters might enshrine that discrimination into the California constitution.

If same-sex couples are permitted to marry in thirty days, then "our side" will have a crucial advantage - the issue becomes whether to take away marriage from legally wedded couples. I'm sure those of you who are married can imagine better than I can - how on earth would you feel if outsiders were going to vote on whether YOUR marriage could legally continue? It's such a disgusting, hateful thing to do that it makes my blood boil. (Of course, I think it's equally hateful to vote on whether same-sex couples can get married prospectively ... but I think it strikes an especial chord when (a) straight people actually see same-sex couples they know marry and see what it means to them AND (b) consider what it would be like to marry, then have that ripped away from you. These factors were what tipped the balance in Massachusetts, where three quarters of the legislature refused to send a referendum to the people that would have allowed this same, hateful vote. And I think they will be the biggest factor here.)

Same-sex marriage as a hypothetical is selling increasingly well - but based on my experience in Massachusetts, it sells even better when folks realize just how much they AREN'T hurt by the two women next door being able to call themselves married and have everyone else know what they're talking about. I'm very anxious for the same thing to happen here next month.

Incidentally, I am writing this from the Castro, where I'm working remotely (unfortunately) - but which is likely the happiest zip code in America tonight. Every last person I've walked by is smiling, grinning. ...people yelling out their plans to propose...people planning to see their friends get married. Male couples walking by holding each others' hands just a little more assertively...female couples gazing into each others' eyes and smiling. If I could count how many times I've heard the words "awesome" and "amazing" and "incredible" today....

You know what I'm thinking - somewhere in this city (or close) there are four human beings - just four - who made this happen, who allowed this tremendous outpouring of hope and gratitude and love and happiness. Did they know how their words would be received? Did they care? Did they perceive themselves just to be construing legal text, or did they ever stop to consider the millions of Californians their words would touch so deeply? Was it a hard decision for them, in an academic sense or in a personal sense? Was their perception shaped by gay people they might have known, or did they decide in the abstract? And as the beneficiaries of their decision celebrate and dance in the street and raise champagne glasses and buy engagement rings ... where are they tonight? At home with their families? Is it another day for them, or are they appreciative of today's place in history? Having spent a year seeing behind the scenes of another court, I am more intrigued than anything else by the humanity, compassion, and genuine, relentless pursuit of justice I've seen firsthand from other members of the judiciary...and I wish I knew a little bit more about how it shaped this decision. Wherever they are tonight, I hope they appreciate the human impact their decision has had on a group of people many of whom had not dared to hope for this outcome.

[Inanna]

Amen.

[Faramond]

Did they perceive themselves just to be construing legal text,

I hope so. To me if it was a human decision for them then it gives some weight to the charge that they were activist judges usurping the will of the voters from 2000. This needed to be the State Constitution usurping the will of the voters ( as it should ) not four people in robes ( no matter how well intentioned ) doing so.

I will forgive you if you don't share this perspective, Nel.

[nerdanel]

Faramond --

At some level, I agree with you. But I will say that in cases with an extremely significant human impact, it is nearly impossible (I would contend "impossible") to "construe text" (whether constitutional or statutory) in a sense entirely divorced from the (1) human ideals embodied in the Constitution and (2) the humanity of the people seeking relief from you-the-Court. To engage in this analysis with no awareness of the impact on the human lives the decision will touch is madness. The cases you are deciding are not abstractions or hypotheticals, and to pretend they are - this is not an endeavor with any merit. (Try to forget "gay marriage," "activist judges," and "imposing perversion on the people" and consider what I'm saying in any other context.)

So too would it be madness to consider the impact on human life divorced from the legal standard. There are times when there is only one possible outcome that the judiciary must prescribe regardless of their personal feelings. (For instance, when asked to decide whether or not to invalidate the marriage licenses issued in San Francisco in 2004, I believe the California Supreme Court had only one choice. They were unlawfully issued based on the laws then in effect, and they needed to be invalidated. In cases where the legal standard is unambiguous, the court's only duty is to apply it.) But in a case like this - you CANNOT understand the Constitution independent of its effect on the humans whose lives it governs. It makes me very, very angry when I hear people characterizing judges who engage in this principled, sincere analysis (while attempting to be true at all times to the legal standard) as "activist." (I'm not saying you are doing this, btw.)

EDIT I'm speaking in general in this post, not with respect to gay rights/marriage.

[Frelga]

That's great news, nel! And go you for being there at the newsmaking place at the history making time.

Ya know, just last night I snapped at someone for using the term "vanilla" at me and my response was, every lesbian couple I met was more vanilla than my family. I've met them through work, school, synagogue, Little League, summer camp. As most couples in my present circle, they work and raise kids and... well, if they are not married, they are giving a very good impression of it. Not in the legal sense but in the profoundly human sense I take the word after it applying to me for the better part of two decades.

One couple I met at the temple was among those married at SF City Hall back when. One of the women passed away last year. She was truly a light unto this world. Everyone knew her, everyone liked her. I don't know how legal issues got sorted out with her widow, but honestly, if anyone gave the bereaved woman any hassle because they weren't "really" married, it's just a damn shame.

[Túrin Turambar]

Quick question - what does this actually mean? Can gay couples actually get married now? Or does it simply open the path for the legislature or someone else to legalise gay marriage?

(Marriage is under Federal jurisdiction here FWIW).

[River]

Gay couples in California can get married.

I'm pleased, if I haven't said that already.

[nerdanel]

L_M - same-sex couples can get married in thirty days when the court's ruling is finalized/takes effect, barring the court's staying its own ruling (which would happen only if opponents file a request for the court to consider, and the court decides to grant the stay - which I think it will not do for the reasons stated above.)

San Francisco has expressed some concern that it will take longer than thirty days to get everything administratively set up to do this, which raises a question for me - how on earth did they do things so quickly in the first place?

BTW - yes, I follow these issues in Australia as well, and I've been quite fascinated by the extent of the veto power your federal government exercises over your states/territories. IIRC, there was recently an issue with enacting civil unions in one area (I want to say, the Australian Capital Territory) because it would have come with - shock and horror! - a brief civil ceremony for "united" couples. Ultimately, because of pressure from the federal government, which threatened to interfere, I think they enacted ceremony-less domestic partnerships with fewer rights, instead. Frankly, paying some attention to your government has done more than anyone in my own country to sell me on states' rights.

[Túrin Turambar]

L_M - same-sex couples can get married in thirty days when the court's ruling is finalized/takes effect, barring the court's staying its own ruling (which would happen only if opponents file a request for the court to consider, and the court decides to grant the stay - which I think it will not do for the reasons stated above.)

San Francisco has expressed some concern that it will take longer than thirty days to get everything administratively set up to do this, which raises a question for me - how on earth did they do things so quickly in the first place?

Yes, I was surprised at this as well (this thread hit me when I sat down to the computer at about half past six this morning) – I didn’t even know a case on the issue was on foot.

BTW - yes, I follow these issues in Australia as well, and I've been quite fascinated by the extent of the veto power your federal government exercises over your states/territories. IIRC, there was recently an issue with enacting civil unions in one area (I want to say, the Australian Capital Territory) because it would have come with - shock and horror! - a brief civil ceremony for "united" couples. Ultimately, because of pressure from the federal government, which threatened to interfere, I think they enacted ceremony-less domestic partnerships with fewer rights, instead. Frankly, paying some attention to your government has done more than anyone in my own country to sell me on states' rights.

It’s true that the Australian States (and Canadian Provinces) have less autonomy than the U.S. States (which reflects, I think, the changing technological situation from 1781 to 1867 to 1901, and the rise of things like railroads and telegraph which make centralized government easier, as well as the fewer states/provinces in Canada and Australia, even compared to the U.S. at the time of its founding).

That said, power to regulate marriage is granted explicitly to the Federal Government by the Australian Constitution – it never was a state issue. That said, the ACT did try to work around the 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment (which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman) by pulling their little civil union trick. However, the ACT is not a state – it is only granted self-government by the Federal Government, which has the power to quash its laws. The Federal Government would have had a harder time interfering if a state tried the same thing, and it would probbaly end up in the High Court with an argument over whether the state had infringed on the Commonwealth's power.

[Jnyusa]

Faramond, thanks for looking that up for me. I recall that the requirements are very different from state to state, from the number of signatures required to get an amendment on a ballot, to the prcentage of votes required for it to pass. Both referenda and constitutional amendements are very difficult in PA or we would have demanded IRV a long time ago. We've never been able to garner the necessary signatures (or to drag people away from their TVs long enough to understand what it is).

San Francisco has expressed some concern that it will take longer than thirty days to get everything administratively set up to do this, which raises a question for me - how on earth did they do things so quickly in the first place?

Funny - it raises a totally different question for me. If it's marriage as usual, why do they have to do anything at all administratively? Just hand out the license, for crying out loud.