« The California ruling's 'money quote' | Main | My report on the Calif. decision »
May 15, 2008
California gay marriage reax
Posted by: Chris
Last updated: Friday May 16, 3:09 a.m. ET
Reaction has run the gamut to today's landmark ruling by the California
Supreme Court decision ordering the state to marry same-sex couples.
From a strongly supportive statement by Republican Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, to somewhat surprisingly tepid reactions from the three
remaining presidential candidates. This post will be continuosly
updated, so check back for more.
For analysis of the opinion itself, click here).
* The photo above, including my pal Robin Tyler (in black) and her partner (soon to be wife!) Robin Olson and other victorious plaintiffs in the California lawsuit (as well as the Gavin Newsom photo, below), is among those compiled by Steve Rothaus of the Miami Herald.
"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," AP reports Robin as saying. "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."
* Go Arnold!
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released a statement immediately after the opinion was issued saying he would uphold the ruling.
"I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling," he added.
Contrast this with Mitt Romney, then-governor of Massachusetts. The California governor deserves real credit here.
* Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for marriage, so same-sex couples from across the country can go west, get married, and return home to legal limbo.
* The high court's ruling will be effective in 30 days, so unless there's some intervening order, marriage licenses should be available for same-sex couples at that time. Expect huge media attention (of the good kind, may I add, since I think it's always good to show real gay couples joyful at the prospect of marrying).
* Expect gay marriage opponents to ask the court to postpone the effective date of its order until after November, so that they can put the question to voters:
"It benefits no one to redefine marriage for three to four months," said Folsom attorney Andrew P. Pugno of ProtectMarriage.com, who said he would seek a stay while pursuing an initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
* Barack Obama campaign statement (Via Politico), represents real progress John Kerry, the party's nominee in 2004, who threw his support behind state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (a position Kerry himself has now abandoned):
Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.
* Nothing yet from John McCain, but remember he's on record opposing a federal marriage amendment as antithetical to Republican values -- not because it's anti-gay, mind you, but because it violates states' rights. He has hinted of late, however, that he might support a federal amendment if judges in more states push the gay marriage button. He already supports state-level constitutional amendments that either preempt or overturn judicial rulings like today's in California.
* Click on the jump to this post for a peak at an ad featuring McCain in 2006 backing an Arizona ballot measure that would have amended that state's constitution by banning not just gay marriage but civil unions and even domestic partnerships. This extreme measure supported by McCain is the only one ever nationwide to be rejected by voters.
* A statement from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, very mild considering his Arizona history (above):
John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.
* This in from Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic Party:
The Supreme Court of California today took a step forward in the long march toward protecting equal rights under the law for every American. This should not be a matter of politics or partisanship; it is a matter of protecting the rights and dignity of all American families.
Dean has come a long way, baby, since going on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" and reassuring viewers that Democrats opposed gay marriage. The former Vermont governor said recently (in his deposition in a lawsuit claiming gay bias in his firing of a party staffer) that he now personally supports gay marriage.
* Gay activist-blogger Michael Petrelis, reacting to Howard Dean (above), is "damn pissed the Donkey Party failed to say the word gay once" in its statement. Point well taken, Michael, but you're always damn pissed, right?
* From the victors:
"This is a historic and landmark day for those who value fairness and opportunity," said Shannon Price Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued the case on behalf of 14 same-sex couples and two organizations, Equality California and Our Family Coalition. "The court's decision today upheld the highest ideals of equality that are embodied in the California Constitution."
"There is no more important and deeply personal decision than whether to take on the commitment of marriage," he added. "With today's ruling, the California Supreme Court declared that lesbians and gay men have an equal right to make that cherished commitment."
For you LGBT kumbayah'ers out there, I'll note that longtime legal advocate Shannon Minter wasn't always a "he," meaning this tremendous victory for "GLB" rights was argued by a "T."
* Legendary lesbians Phyllis Lyon, 83, and Del Martin, 87, were among the plaintiffs who won today in California and even received special notice in the majority opinion:
"We have waited more than 50 years for the opportunity to marry," said Phyllis Lyon, on behalf of herself and Del Martin, who are plaintiffs in the case. Lyon, 83, and Martin, 87, have been together 56 years. "We are thrilled that this day has finally come."
* Former GOP Congressman Bob Barr, author of the Defense of Marriage Act and recently-announced Libertarian candidate for president, has a hands-off reactions likely to please those he's now courting:
Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
For the record, I'm not buying this "new and improved" Barr. His DOMA went far beyond simply "ensur[ing] that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state," as he claimed in today's statement. First of all, the U.S. Constitution already does that in the Full Faith & Credit Clause (or doesn't, as the case may be), so a federal statute doesn't change that reality. But DOMA did go much further, prohibiting any federal recognition for those states that do decide to marry same-sex couples. Where is the respect for states' rights there? It's bullshit, just like Bob Barr.
* Conservative Christians are already goading McCain to use the California ruling as his justification for reversing position on a federal marriage amendment:
If John McCain wanted an opportunity to make common cause with the Christian Right, he's just been handed it: the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn the state's gay marriage ban. One of the Christian Right's biggest grievances against McCain is his steadfast refusal to get behind a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. This is a moment when McCain can reverse that opposition and make a plausible case that circumstance, rather than raw political calculus, forced his hand.
Given McCain's tepid response so far (above), the Christian right may well be further alienated. I predict it will take about a campaign nano-second for strategists at the Straight Talk Express to realize the California ballot measure (along with another expected in the key swing state of Florida) are like gifts from Karl Rove to drum up dispirited conservative turnout.
* Now this in from Hillary Clinton (h/t: Queerty):
Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal.
As president, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
She mostly follows the same wary line as Obama, with the one important difference that she manages to make any explicit reference to the California ruling itself. At least Obama said he "respects the decision." Heck, even Arnold said that! But not our gay rights champion, Hillary.
* San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who had been earlier rebuffed politically and by the state's Supreme Court for ordering his city clerk to marry gay couples in February 2004, is now vindicated by today's decision, which agrees with him that state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional:
As San Franciscans, we have taken an irrevocable step toward resolving one of the most important civil rights issues of our generation, and the state's highest court has done the right thing with their ruling.
San Francisco is the first government entity in American history to challenge the constitutionality of state marriage laws that discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. I believe that the path San Francisco pursued was not merely right – it was inevitable. It is America’s path – the road to true freedom and equality.
* Familiar "shock and appall" from the anti-gay Concerned Women for America:
Today the California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, so-called "same-sex marriage" on Californians, thus totally disregarding the sanctity of marriage and the will of the people.
A few nits with that statement. The court didn't create "so-called 'same-sex marriage,'" it ruled that gay and straight couples should be treated equally under the same institution. If Californians want to limit the word "marriage" to a religious context, they can (and should, in my view) enact "civil unions" or "civil partnerships" for gay and straight couples alike. The state just can't create one water fountain for the whites and another for the coloreds, even if the water tastes the same.
* The venom from Matt Barber, the CWA's Policy Director for Cultural Issues, was particularly poisonous:
So-called 'same-sex marriage' is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies.
If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit.
Anyone wondering whether those opposing marriage for gays are actually motivated by hate, and a desire to treat us as second-class citizens, need look no further than Barber's statement for proof.
* President Bush, who responded to the 2004 Massachusetts decision by throwing his support behind a federal marriage amendment, reacted similarly to the outcome in California:
“President Bush has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,” said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary. “Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment is the best way for the people to decide what marriage means.”
* VoteYesMarriage.com, the oxymoronically named group that wants to overturn the California decision, chose to fear-monger instead. "This is what the California Supreme Court has said: Children have a new role model — homosexual marriage, aspire to it," said the group's Randy Thomasson. "This is a disaster."
* Gay Republicans appear split in their reaction. Patrick Sammon, who heads up Log Cabin Republicans, defended the decision. "This ruling is a conservative one. The justices have ensured that the law treats all Californians fairly and equally. Two people in a loving and committed relationship deserve the support and dignity that come with marriage."
B. Daniel Platt, better known as Gay Patriot West for those who know the GayPatriot blog, was less complimentary:
To some degree, I am grateful that this issue has received the attention it is getting, but I’m also troubled by the decision. To be sure, the court makes some valuable arguments about the merits of recognizing same-sex unions, but I believe those arguments should be made to the citizens of the Golden State, 62% of whom voted in 2000 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. …
It’s not just the court’s bypassing the people’s will that troubles me, it’s also some things the court said about marriage. The court refuses to rely upon the “historical” understanding of marriage, noting that “prohibitions on interracial marriage” are also part of the historical record. What it neglects to mention is that those laws were statutory creations, while the historical understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman goes back for millennia.
Here's that Arizona campaign ad featuring John McCain:
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e55240bb108834
Comments
-
Not sure I understand you completely, Pomo. The court did, in fact, bypass the Legislature and order gays be married immediately. The only wiggle room left the Legislature and the Governator is to rename the whole institution something other than marriage.
-
Newsom's lawlessness was no more or less lawless than G.W.B. torture. While federal courts have rebuffed G.W.B., California's Supreme Court simply stepped over the bulls"it mayor and his legal team. Apparently, they thought temper tantrums were what GAY ACTIVISTS wanted. The Republican Court decided rather simply, names, logic, are the State's criteria, as well as democracy. FISTR Leno and Ted-Haggard Newsom were thought to be consoling each other. The ONLY one standing for GLBT was the Governor.
Without promises and failure to deliver, what will the Rabbi FISTR, Mayor "Airhead Pretty Boy," and Hilary Democrats use to filch GAY MONEY so Republicans can deliver what losers cannot? Anyone with any commonsense knew GLBT were a Democrat's pretense, which Republican Right Wingers took the bank.
Oh, on Thursday evening, the night of the Decision, no San Francisco politician could be found on a very warm night in the Castro to "celebrate." No. They scattered, less the nation discover their answers to GLBT causes are just as defective as Republicans, just not as rabid or rabbinical.
Even if Crain STILL does not get it, Pam Spaulding does. RECTITUDE, not promises, are all that counts politically, unless one is whore, like HRC. But no one questioned its whoredom -- SAVE CHRIS -- who cannot tell a PAC from a 501. Promises, Promises, that don't DELIVER, might be a clue. But clues require thought, not just bombastic propaganda all over the queer maps.
Pomo on May 16, 2008 1:01:36 AM:
What a wonderful suprise this was! I just posted about it. I couldn't wipe the cheezy smile off my face for an hour! As a political conservative I was impressed that the court seemed cautious of judicial activism. Which is why they didn't "force" gay marriage. They simply ruled that the legislature should decide and now Gov. Schwarzenegger won't veto their bill (since he previously has on 2 other occasions)