A Significant Step Forward For Marriage Equality
By TwistieTwo days ago the California Supreme Court ruled that people have a ‘fundamental right to marry’ and that gender restrictions violate the equal protection guarantee in the state constitution.
While the war for marriage equality has been going on for some time, this particular battle began in 2004 when Mayor Gavin Newsome announced that gay marriage would be legal in San Francisco, regardless of the law in the rest of the state. Gay and lesbian couples flocked to the city, got married, and were then told their marriages were invalid because of a law passed in 2000 declaring “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” After that law was passed by voters, California developed one of the strongest domestic partnership laws in the country…but that still isn’t the same as marriage.
When I heard the news of this ruling, what struck me was how the wording sounded familiar to me in content. I heard a distant echo of Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka which struck down racially segregated public schools in 1954. The argument then was that ’separate but equal’ as a policy may always be separate, but was almost never equal.
In its 4-3 ruling on thursday, the court declared that using the term ‘domestic partnership’ instead of marriage imposes ‘appreciable harm’ on gay couples and their children, and might cast “doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.”
Of course, the struggle is far from over. The ruling may go into effect in ninety days - or I guess that’s eighty-eight from today - but there is an effort going on now to get a Constitutional Amendment on the California ballot for November banning gay marriage. Both sides of the issue expect it to make it onto the ballot, and California voters remain deeply divided on the issue. We’ll have to wait and see how that goes…and what the next move on the part of the losing side is after that.
For right now, though, I think this quote from Stuart Gaffney, one of the plaintiffs in the case, regarding his twenty-one year relationship with partner John Lewis, sums up my personal feelings on the subject:
“I can finally say I will be able to marry John, the man that I love. Today is the happiest and most romantic day of our lives.”
Stuart and John, I wish you happiness. Save me a piece of wedding cake, okay?
May 17th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I was so happy about this court ruling! I love being married and love weddings, so I’m thrilled that this right is finally being extended to same-sex couples.
However, I wonder how long this ruling will stand. There’s already a huge drive to overthrow it.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
No. I am disgusted you would post such immoral rubbish. Kindly stick to dresses and centerpieces.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I worked on this case, and attended the oral arguments, where I met Lewis and Gaffney. Despite all of the research that my team put in, it was only being there, immersed in the heat of the issue that I really FELT it. Of course, I supported and advocated for the issue, but I never felt the weight of the opposition’s hatred, and the confined nature of not being able to express oneself.
It is something that I carry with me as I plan my own wedding. Eco-consciousness is all the rage, which is great. But I also plan to to make sure that any and all of my vendors are marriage equality-friendly.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:58 am
P.q., clearly you and I have very different views of what is immoral and what is rubbish. I happen to consider it immoral that a large segment of the population of the country I live in is routinely denied basic rights of citizenship based purely on what gender they prefer as romantic/sexual partners. I also consider replies that consist of nothing but insults rubbish. Please consider this fair warning that your next comment that consists of nothing but insults will be deleted.
Differences of opinion are respected here. Simple abuse is not.
This blog is here to discuss all aspects of weddings and preparation for marriage. Our tendancy is to focus on trends in fashion, decoration, etc. with a humorous edge, but this does not mean we will simply ignore major potential changes in marriage law. I have never hidden my support of marriage equality. I have, in fact, written about it before in this blog. Chances are I will again. If you cannot handle that, I respectfully suggest you may not wish to read those entries.
In return, I promise not to leave rude comments on your blog when you express the opposite opinion.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Yea! Twistie! Yea! California! “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…” This has been a falsehood in this country for years. With ethnic groups, with women, with gays, etc… With this step, we are getting closer to the philosophy that this country was founded on. And I’ve said it before, don’t get me started on traditional marriage! Daughters for sale to the highest bidder in order to increase wealth, territory, social, or political gain. Love matches are relatively recent. My next door neighbors are gay and I’m looking forward to sending Manolo for the Brides suggestions of the perfect styles for the same sex ceremony!
May 18th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
As California goes, so does the rest of the nation.
I find it hard to believe that the gay community could have a worse record of divorce than the straight community.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I’m with Twistie on this one, P.q. As far as I’m concerned, this is a pro-marriage equality wedding blog, where everything including dresses and centerpieces are for an audience that includes straight and gay brides- and grooms-to-be. If discrimination is your bag, you may want to check out some of the other, less open-minded blogs out there.
That said, I’ll say this: Yay, California!
May 18th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
In other happy equality news, Massachusetts celebrated four years of same-sex marriage this past week. The world is still on its axis, the stars are still in the heavens, and a whole bunch of queer people have gotten married. I am so, so happy about that, and I am thrilled that California is poised to join the party.
As a woman, as a feminist, as an advocate for social justice, and as a human, I cannot conscience treating other humans as second-class citizens. Saying that only those adults who love each other who happen to be a man and a woman are good enough to marry demeans, lessens, and relegates to a second-class status all same-sex relationships, which can be just as loving and committed as any other relationship. Commitment and love don’t know any boundaries on gender or sexual orientation. All humans are deserving of love, and I believe that all humans should be free to express that love equally - regardless of sex, gender identity, race, religion, sexual orientation, ability, or any other factors.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Funny little story:
A bunch of friends and I were sitting around mocking the folks who say that gay marriage will destroy straight marriage. I deadpanned, “Oh no! Now that you can get ‘gay married’ in California, The Beard is totally going to ditch me for a dude.”
One of my friends looked at me exasperatedly and said, “NtB, you live in Massachusets. He could have done that ages ago.”
Needless to say, I felt dumb.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:16 am
(giggles)
Oh, NtB, I have a pathetic grasp on geography, but even I have never forgotten what state I live in!
I kid because I love.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Along with the majority of the posters here, I offer a heart “yay!” for this news. I already know one couple who are planning their wedding for next summer.
(In related news, has Gavin Newsome (the mayor of San Francisco) ever looked more like the preppie villain in a bad eighties comedy? I keep expecting that any moment he is going to insult Bill Murray and then get hit in the balls or knocked into a muddy pond.)