Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

The California Supreme Court Has Corrected a Monumental Injustice

By Deb Price, Creators Syndicate. Posted May 20, 2008.


Let's hope the rest of the nation follows suit and moves towards legalizing gay marriage.

When I took the eye exam for my driver's license as a teenager, I first tried without my glasses.

"Nice rows of blurry black lines, right?" I joked.

I slipped on my glasses. And presto, crisp, distinct letters appeared before my eyes. The letters, of course, had always been there -- I just couldn't recognize them.

When the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals, it essentially said that one job of courts is to adjust the vision of people who simply haven't been able to see the injustice right in front of them.

Chief Justice Ronald George, a Republican appointee who wrote the 121-page majority opinion, said the nation's evolution in views and policies toward racial minorities and women teaches "that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."

The 4-3 ruling -- the same split as in 1948, when California's top court became the first to strike down a ban on marriage between people of different races -- means gay couples can marry in California in about 30 days.

California follows Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 gay couples have married since 2004. But unlike in Massachusetts, gay couples from any state will be able to marry in California.

The breakthrough in the trendsetting Golden State -- home to one of every eight Americans -- is gigantic.

As San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who triggered the court case in 2003 by allowing his city to issue licenses to gay couples, joyfully put it after the ruling, "As California goes, so goes the nation!"

The landmark decision by the nation's most influential state court was immediately embraced by two California heavyweights: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat with the power to block any federal marriage amendment.

All is not sunny in California, though. Voters will likely have to decide on a state amendment aimed at once again restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

But Schwarzenegger and Pelosi will help protect this advance, which Chief Justice George noted flows from recognition that the right to marry the person of one's choice is a "basic civil right (guaranteed) to all Californians."

So, his court isn't creating a new right. It's just saying the state mustn't block gay couples from exercising the right to marry -- just as it mustn't block interracial couples: "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Marriage is "central ... to an individual's opportunity to live a happy, meaningful and satisfying life as a full member of society," George wrote. Withholding access to it "works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children."

The court's ruling is a wonderful advance for all Americans, just as has been true of gains for religious minorities, racial minorities, women and the disabled. Equality is the defining value we share as Americans.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gay marriage, gay rights, california, schwarzenegger, pelosi

Deb Price of The Detroit News writes the first nationally syndicated column on gay issues.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Just something to remember when you read stories trumpeting...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 20, 2008 9:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..."democracy" and "populism".

The people said that homosex marriage isn't marriage, and the supreme cout of CA corrected that populist ideal.

Urge folks to keep in mind that "populism" and "democracy" aren't inherently in congruency with freedom and liberty.

As an addendum, I fully support folks' life decisions, and I give not one damn what sort of orifice you prefer. I think it's a shame that there are people who would discriminate based on whether you prefer a hairy tush or not. Having said that, this is another valuable lesson that "populism" and "democracy" do NOT equate to freedom and liberty.

Keep this lesson in mind the next time that some tells you to support something because 50% + 1 of the polled electorate agrees: the electorate doesn't give a shit about your freedom.

The electorate be damned. Choose freedom whenever you can, please?

So, in contrast with GWB: freedom and democracy are not the same. Freedom is fundamental; democracy is a tool to choose laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're at war against happiness... Posted by: ABetterFuture
Pay Any Price, Bear Any Burden
Posted by: AlexLawyer on May 21, 2008 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm happy about the result, but unhappy about the timing. The Republicans will use this to rally the troops and boost turnout, which will be important because many of those on the far right are ambivalent about McCain. Most evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics would rather destroy themselves economically, prolong a losing war and trash the planet by re-electing Bush's policies reincarnated as a senile jingo with a wife who looks like Tammy Faye Bakker's anorexic twin sister than let two consenting adults who love each other get married.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Timing Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
Why can't this wait until after we elect a Democrat President....why..?
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 21, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can't Gays wait until it's not a presidential election year to push this through..?

Think of all the deaths attributed to Bush and the radical right wing here in America since 2004 that could have been averted had there not been those decisions in Massachusetts and weddings in San Francisco and here near by in New Paltz NY..

In 6,000 years of recorded history marriage has been between a man and woman 6,000 years so why why why can't we wait one more lousy year to get Democrat in the White House to change this so Gays can get married like idiots and then divorced and sue each other over custody of their stupid mangy cats and wicker lawn furniture..?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Winning in November
Posted by: creswell on May 21, 2008 5:37 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We will WIN in (CA) November/2008 with our votes to BAN homosexual marriages with an amendment. We lost a battle in May/2008 but will WIN the WAR.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Winning in November Posted by: HoboHomo
ONE MORE REASON I'AM GLAD I LEFT CALIFORNIA
Posted by: mindtrvlr on May 21, 2008 7:32 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope all the homo's and Latino's are happy now. Wouildn't bother me if California suceeded from the U.S. and called it Gayfornia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Threatened?
Posted by: maestra on May 22, 2008 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guess which US state has the lowest divorce rate?
(hint: it's that liberal and progressive one in the northeast, where they realise that gays getting married actually does not mean straights' marriages are doomed...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

False accusation
Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan on May 22, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
indicate a false, erroneous, destructive position. GLBTQ are not trying to 'change human nature' - except perhaps, in the sense of continuing the change away from bigotry, prejudice and intolerance. But if you want someone to blame for that particular change, you can go back at least as far as Jesus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: False accusation Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: False accusation Posted by: HoboHomo
Regarding Timing
Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan on May 22, 2008 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First - the proposed amendment in California was already in the works, already targeting the November general election - and announced as an effort to get conservative voters to the polls for the presidential election.

In other words, conservatives had already launched an attemt to make this a wedge issue for the 2008 election long before the CA Supreme court made their decision.

Second, voters tend to have a short-attention span, and $5 a gallon gas in July will chase most of the uproar about same-sex marriage off most people's radar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake-Up, America!
Posted by: GriGri on May 22, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two basic sources of laws in the United States: Statutory, or laws that occur as a result of legislative action, and Common, or laws that arise as a result of judicial interpretation of existing laws and constitutions.

The second source, when it arises from the Supreme Court of the United States of America, is the "law of the land," trumping all other laws. In 1967 (Loving v Virginia), the Supreme Court came to the same conclusion about the right to marry as the California Supreme Court did this week. The only difference being that the 1967 decision addressed interracial marriages.

We are a nation of laws. Laws whose sole purpose is to protect the individual rights and liberties of citizens. Therefore, the California decision must become the law of the land or the land will lose the authority upon which its laws are based.

This should be a time for celebration for all Americans who embrace, who extol, who love the American ideal of individual liberty and responsibility.

God bless the Supreme Court of California. God bless the Supreme Court of the United States as it fulfills its responsibility to America's citizens. And, finally, God bless America as its people come to embrace the values we hold so dear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wake-Up, America! Posted by: mindtrvlr
Go Now to the BACK OF THE BUS
Posted by: LeaderofMen on May 27, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Get thee to the back, you slimy fag." That should have been your topic title.

Or

"You're to blame if McCain wins the election."

Or

"Wait just a minute. I mean another year. No, I meant another decade. Oh heck. Just go away forever."


CIVIL RIGHTS DO NOT WAIT FOR A 'CORRECT' TIME.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriage
Posted by: billgee on May 29, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why get in married in the first place?
In the second place ...

Everybody Wake Up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Gays get married while the straights get Divorced.
Posted by: Ottomatic on May 30, 2008 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legal entanglements?
More shysters please!
The right yes.
While the Timing is chosen by the opposition
To further their evil plans.
Bring every crack pot out of the closet for this one.
Black Boxes and caging aside.
They want to prolong their evil control.
The McBUSH & Co water slide to HELL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]