Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Should gay marriage remain a states issue?
05.28.2009 12:25pm EDT
(San Francisco, California) California’s status as a guardian of gay rights slipped this week when its highest court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, even as other states extended the institution to gay couples.
“Are the people of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire more sexually literate than Californians?” asked the National Sexuality Resource Center, a San Francisco-based think tank, naming the states where gays can or soon will be able to wed.The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 8, in a state that’s home to 14 percent of the nation’s same-sex couples and was the first to offer gays the spousal rights of marriage without being ordered to by a court.
Voters in 2008 passed the constitutional amendment, which trumped an earlier state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
In spite of the setback in the state, gay rights advocates say they still believe what happens there is important no matter the outcome. Supporters and opponents spent $83 million on the Proposition 8 campaign last year, making it the most expensive election on a social issue in the nation’s history.
“Certainly California remains very important in this epic struggle just because it’s so big,” said Richard Socarides, who served as President Bill Clinton’s adviser on gay civil rights.
And because of its size, gay rights advocates say they’ll continue their campaign to win over more voters. Leaders of Equality California and Courage Campaign said they have started canvassing in more conservative parts of the state, working with religious and ethnic groups and otherwise learning from mistakes made during last year’s failed campaign.
“The biggest thing California can do is win back marriage at the ballot box,” said Mary Bonauto, the civil rights director of Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which brought the lawsuit that led to Massachusetts becoming the first state to sanction same-sex marriage.
“We have won marriage in courts, we have even now marriage winning in legislatures,” she said. “To win it with the people would crumble the right wing’s whole house of cards.”
Bonauto said that if California advocates succeeded in getting Proposition 8 reversed, it would mark an unprecedented milestone: 28 other states have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage but none have been challenged with a popular vote.
As California gay rights groups prepared to launch a campaign to repeal Proposition 8 at the ballot box next year, two lawyers announced Tuesday they had filed a federal lawsuit challenging the initiative in the hopes of getting the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, the lawyers who represented opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election challenge, said they think the high court is ripe to take on the issue. They filed on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.
“I felt it was very important we present the American people and the courts a unified front and tell the courts and the American people through our presence and our participation this is not about right or left or partisan politics,” Olson said. “This is about what we all share as Americans.”
But it wasn’t a move welcomed by all advocates. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the suit “sends a powerful message that the time for change has come,” but also warned the lawyers of the “only one shot at the U.S. Supreme Court.”
They and “any attorneys bringing a case that will affect the freedom and legal status of an entire community bear a very heavy responsibility to be certain they have fully considered the consequences,” Minter said.
Gay rights activists also were pressuring President Barack Obama to fulfill his campaign pledge to work toward repealing the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. The law prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and other federal rights of marriage.
The focus, however, remained on working though state legislatures and voters to win marriage rights, said Evan Wolfson, executive director of New York-based Freedom to Marry.
“Winning marriage in more states is crucial not only for the families living in those states, but for creating a comfort level that sets the stage for a national resolution,” he said.
Gaining full and equal protection under the law for Gay & Lesbian people is about MORE than Marriage Equality. Yes marriage, specifically civil marriage is a states issue. But full civil equality, i.e. serving in the military, housing and employment protections, jointly filed income tax returns, appearing as a family on census records (to name a few) are or should be federally protected. We need to get these things formalized by a federal court decision or by making federal law. I am all for seeking equality via the Supreme Court. I am worried that these two fancy lawyer are rushing things. If they turn out to be playing hocus pocus with the LGBT Community in order to win a decision against us it will take an extremely long time to undo.
No. Are civil rights a state’s issue? I think not.
It should be made a federal issue. doesnt matter if its in missouri or new york, it is still America, and united we shall stand. things like this should not be handled in a state by state basis. I have to agree with Nikki and the way she sees things pertaining to this. Great job Nikki!
Marriage should be a federal issue. The right to marry affords gays a social acceptance and legitimacy well beyond marriage. Here in Canada, I find that since the law was changed federally, going out in public places as a male couple is not the ‘what will they think of us’ dilemma it used to be. Restaurants no longer seat us at the back, no one stares at us anymore, no remarks. And my partner and I are not even married.
I agree with Nikki, the general public is stupid. Its time for people in high power to take some action and make things happen. Barack Obama isn’t going to do anything, so who do we have to turn to, the Supreme Court? Im willing to bet all the chips on a Supreme Court case rather than doing nothing at all, and we will succeed if we put enuff pressure on the Court’s Justices,even if that means we have to play dirty or get violent because you know our opponents will. Its now or never: Rise up, Fight back, Take action!
Marriage is an issue for the states – not the federal government.
In our federal system, states have a responsibility to regulate marriage, not the federal government. That is why you can still marry your cousin in some places.
I am a gay man and believe marriage is a civil rights issue, but as far as the way our country was intended to run with regard to some thing, including marriages, is that it is a states issue. At least that is the way I understand it.
>I don’t understand this “only one shot at the supreme court” thing.
Another example: In 1986, the Supreme Court decided that “there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to sodomy” in its Bowers v. Hardwick decision. My favorite part of that decision was the resounding “no comment” in regard to heterosexual sodomy.
In 2003, in (I think) Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court got it right and struck down all state sodomy laws.
So, after failing, it took 17 years to get another good shot at over turning the sodomy laws. And, during those 17 years, conservatives *loved* to bash us over the head with the Bowers v Hardwick decision (that’s part of what the previous poster meant about “precedent”).
People are underestimating the power of anti-discrimination laws. I hardly think that we in Massachusetts are more “sexually literate” than people in California. However, we we did have longer than California and most other states was an anti-discrimination law in place since 1989 (Wisconsin was the first, I believe, in 1983). What this did was make it safer for people to come out, because they were FAR less likely to lose their jobs and housing. Once people felt safer to come out, we developed more straight allies as they got to know us. During this time, I noticed a migration out of the gay ghettos of the Boston and into the surrounding suburbs, giving even MORE straight people the chance to know us as we really are (instead of how the Far Right paints us).
So, I really think that any discussion of nationalizing marriage equality before we are able to nationalize anti-discrimination policies is foolish. Let’s take some of that energy and pass ENDA! (Meanwhile, we can keep duking it out for marriage equality state by state until a national anti-discrimination law is in place.)
Failure in CA may mean the push for nationwide LGBT marriage rights has hit a major roadblock for now. ..No marriage in such a progressive, large and influential state? – But almost equal domestic partnerships. ..Maybe civil unions would be acceptable to more people nationwide. Marriage like a rose, (to paraphrase )by any other name would still smell as sweet. Or, If it has feathers and looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, does it matter if someone else does not want to call it a duck? Be happy first. Press for full marriage equality. But, let’s be willing to compromise.
If we only have one shot at full equality, when if ever will be the right time.
Is timing everything, or is fear of the outcome the excuse for timing.
If the Supreme Court decides to deny gay people their equal justice under the law, shouldn’t we face that possible fact, or be so fearful as to keep procrastinating the inevitable.
Our fight is not just about our equality, it’s the first major test and confrontation of a true realization of actually forcing the separation of church and state.
This should be part of the argument, our religious oppressors are fighting to keep their stronghold over this separation, we are their last pawn and they will stop at nothing to keep their power, it is religion that wants to keep their control and stop the true separation .
For me the time is past due, let the separation begin.
Nikki. California got marriage passed in the legislature twice, only to be voted by a republican governator, and won in the supreme court only to be overturned by the voters. It is clear we need to convince the voters to grant our rights, even though we shouldn’t have to as they are supposed to be guaranteed to everyone.
There are 4 bigots on the U.S. Supreme court, so that isn’t a very good option at this point in time either.
We have a lot of hard work to do, and overturning DADT would be a big help, as it actively teaches discrimination to thousands of new recruits each year, as well as continuing the prejudice it was designed to indulge. We need to get it out of the way while working on marriage equality at the state level for now. Federal is necessary, but won’t happen while the feds continue to teach prejudice and discrimination through DADT. Get your representatives to repeal it so Obama can sign the repeal.
Tony. Can’t argue with the name thing much, but speaking out is more important than a name, and not enough of us are speaking out, especially on straight sites. I do on 6 local newspapers, and am one of only a few who do. Most of the supporters are straight. We need to get more people involved where it counts. Here, I fear we are only preaching to the choir. I was also one of only a few in my small town who turned out for the rally on Tues. evening. But I need the news and a break from the homophobes for a little while before jumping back into the fray. So how do we get more of our fellow gay people and supporters involved?
You only get one shot because if you take it to the Supreme Court and fail badly (like the conservative Olson’s current challenge will – perhaps because that’s what he wants) the SC will stay away from similar cases for a generation. It creates an important precedent that can be used to fight marriage equality everywhere. It will energize the right too
I don’t understand this “only one shot at the supreme court” thing. Can somebody explain this please?
marriage is on the federal level for straights and we shoulds accept nothing less guys , the usa fears that if that happens we would be able to bring gays from other countries and make them americans … lets get smart guys we pay taxes and have a right to the same representation , looks like it might me time again for another tea party , we gotta show or numbers in force , niceness in this country dont work . please rmeber when posting a blog here not to be scared of putting your full name and location on , lets show them we will not be stopped , and were only growing stronger each day ……
I can see how “winning” gay marriage through popular vote would destroy the right’s “gay marriage is being forced on the people by elite rulers” argument, but have civil rights ever been won in a popularity contest? Is it not humiliating and demeaning to earn a fundamental right, one that you are entitled to as a human being, simply because some stupid hick living in a trailer park finally gave you “permission” to do so? Who is the general public to “decide” whether we should be granted this fundamental right? It is not the people’s place to decide which minority gets to come out and play. If it was, we would probably still have segregation, and women wouldn’t be able to vote.