Pedestrian

October 5, 2008

A lot of tears were shed shortly after 10am PT on May 26, 2009 – here’s one news report which includes my wife, Moya Watson, mentioning that she wept on the NBC evening news, here’s an AP article that quoted me while I was wiping away tears.

Now that we’ve used up a box of tissues, I’m getting a bit tired of the insults thrown at California despite the disappointing cowardly, and, yes, shameful ruling. I see a lot of hope and momentum and cause for optimism partially because California still provides more legal protection for GLBT couples than most states.  Despite the tears this week, here we were in October 2008 talking with Michael Tomasky about worry that our marriage would be invalidated … and it wasn’t.

Think about the 4 states in 6 weeks, and then try on this tasty tidbit from Justice Moreno, “The rule the majority crafts … places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorites.”  It’s shameful that more of the justices didn’t concur with him, but at least it wasn’t 7-0.  I highly recommend reading Moreno’s entire opinion (PDF – Moreno’s opinion starts on page 151).  It’ll make you feel good.

Mark Morford writes, “Sorry, enemies of gay marriage. Prop 8 or no, you’ve already lost.”

The Daily Kos points out some of the positive parts on page 36 of the decision:

Today, the court unanimously upheld the substantive fundamental right.  Liberal to conservative, they all now accept it.  They construed Prop 8 as narrowly as possible: as a initiative that addressed what we would label these relationships that we normally call marriage.  The voters said that we can’t call these relationships “marriage” when they involve same-sex couples.  That’s an insult to gays and lesbians and I hope and believe that it will not last.  But note what this does not say.

I disagree with Andrew Sullivan’s assertion that the ruling was “the right call,” and I appreciate his optimism that …

It would have been equally dreadful if those couples lawfully wed were subsequently forced into divorce by the court. And these married couples and their families and children will now become the focus of the debate in California, as they should be. They are the evidence that we are right: that extending the blessings and responsibilities of full family life to gay men and lesbians is a good and conservative and integrating thing. We need now to put these families forward as our core argument. Their lives are our best case. Like mixed-race married couples in another era, they will show that there is nothing to fear here and much to celebrate.

A legal writer for Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish (at The Atlantic) argues that the decision further solidifies gay rights:

It appears that this is a blockbuster pro-gay-rights decision, restricting the effect of Prop 8 to the effect of removing the designation of gay civil unions as “marriage,” but upholding all equal rights previously declared by the Court; and, suggesting that if the opponents of gay rights were to try to restrict equal union rights for gays by constitutional change, such change would be an Amendment (not a revision) and thus would be procedurally much more difficult to accomplish.

Being able to lay claim to the word “marriage” is important, but in all other respects this appears to be a spectacular decision in favor of gay rights.

The word “marriage” is very important, and I plan to take up this cause and, like Dan Savage suggests, show how my marriage is doing no harm and is, in fact, doing a lot of good.

The anti-gay bigots said before the decision that they wanted Prop 8 upheld and they weren’t concerned about the 18K gay couples who wed while same-sex marriage was briefly legal in CA. That exposes their fundamental dishonesty. If they believe, as they claimed during the campaign, that married same-sex couples are a threat to the family, a threat to children, an invitation to hurricanes and earthquakes and wildfires, and that the existence of married gay couples somehow requires homosexuality to be taught in schools, how can they be indifferent to 18K married gay couples rattling around the state? Won’t all those bad things still happen?

(Related side note: I’m completely intrigued – and I know many think this is a horrible move – by Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson taking up the cause in federal court.)

I’m still angrysad about the decision, and I’ve started to feel that my membership in the California Supreme Court certified special class of 18,000 married couples can be a powerful spot instead of an awkward angrysad part of a small minority.  Now I want some membership schwag.  I’m thinking of gold-embossing a copy of our October 2008 marriage certificate and putting it on t-shirts.  Perhaps my membership in the certified special class of 18,000 can help me inspire some Yes on 8 voters to also vote Yes in 2010 on the proposition to legalize marriage equality and undo the harm of Prop 8.

I also believe, as does my wife, Moya, that marriage will and should eventually be downsized to a religious word and what we now consider to be legal civil marriage should instead be a legal civil union for all couples with marriages left to religion.

With ads including gay/lesbian couples, pun intended, coming out now (unlike the advertising during the No on Prop 8 campaign which specifically excluded gay/lesbian couples), and hopefully more people like myself going out and introducing ourselves to Yes on 8 voters, maybe they won’t be so afraid of us and maybe they’ll see we’re not so unlike them.

Ruben and Hector (30 seconds)

Frances and Cynthia (30 seconds)

Kate Kendell: Tell your story and NoDumbQuestions.org will show you how to do it. (2 minutes)

For anyone who voted Yes on 8 and is planning to vote No on the marriage equality proposition next year, I’m still working out my anger before I come to meet you with a more friendly tone, so, for now, as Lily Allen sings, Fuck you very much for voting to hurt my family: