Robert Gates yesterday on talking to Iran:
"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage … and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."
Grow up, Mr President. Be an adult, like your defense secretary.
A reader writes:
"Their family relationship" is the most striking phrase in the ruling – even for me, as a gay man. It rightly identifies what is at stake. What a radical notion: that we can form a family!
Or that we are already part of one. Another worries:
As explained in one of the dissents, the California Court’s majority basically ruled that, because the California legislature has recognized domestic partnerships (i.e., civil unions), the California Constitution requires that the state also recognize gay marriage. We should expect, in response, that other, less progressive, states will move to curtail or prohibit civil unions. Those who oppose gay marriage will argue – with some force now – that the only way to prevent a court from recognizing gay marriage by judicial fiat is to prevent civil unions. Because otherwise, a state court may bootstrap a gay marriage right onto any (democratically created) civil union laws.
The decision is an arrogant, impatient one. My gay friends are impatient, and I understand their impatience. But the Court should have trusted the people.
It was only a matter of time. A democratic consensus, based on reason and persuasion, is much better for everyone, in all the states, in the long run.
Yes, and it has been building. But a republic is not just a democracy. It is a confluence of constitutions, laws, legislatures, executives and courts. In 1948, the California court ruled against miscegenation bans. It took three decades for that act of "judicial activism" to gain consensus nationally. Another reader writes:
As I sit at my desk and I read your coverage of this remarkable day in California, David Byrne’s version of "Don’t Fence Me In" plays on my iPod. Coincidence? You make the call.
Another:
I’m sitting at my cubicle at the conservative aviation insurance brokerage firm where I work, tears of joy running down my white, heterosexual, Republican cheeks at the California decision. I feel more elated right now than I will if McCain wins in November – this is real, palpable, substantial change, and it’s happening now (or, well, in 30 days). I’m 25, and this is one of the brightest rays of sunshine my young adult life has seen in a period besotted by torture, war, and a deluge of incompetence. This is a great, landmark day.
Drum has information on the ballot initiative that would reverse today’s ruling:
…the initiative to strike down their ruling has already gathered over a million signatures and is just waiting for verification from the Secretary of State before it goes on the November ballot. It’s 14 words long, identical to the wording of Prop 22 back in 2000: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This time, however, it’s a constitutional initiative, not a statutory initiative, so if it passes it will be immune to court challenges.
Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly with 63% of the vote. Has 13% of the state decided to relax since then and allow gay couples to live in peace? We’re about to find out.
That was eight years ago before marriages had become legal in California and Massachusetts. The current polling shows the state evenly divided.
(Photo: Christmas Leubrie wears a pro same-sex marriage button on her dress as she awaits a California Supreme Court decision to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage at the California Supreme Court May 15, 2008 in San Francisco, California. By Justin Sullivan/Getty.)
A map of them all!
Schwarzenegger’s statement on 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."
Other reactions: Timothy Kincaid:
…this is not the final word. We are not yet sure whether a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in the California Constitution received enough signatures to make it on the ballot in November.
But whatever you are doing right now, stop for a moment to celebrate an important change. Now one of ten Americans live in a state in which gay people are accorded full equality under the law.
So four years – almost to the day – since couples began marrying in Massachusetts, the California Supreme Court has handed the marriage equality movement its biggest win yet.
Massachusetts has refused marriage licenses to most out-of-state couples; California won’t do that. When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom authorized same-sex marriage in February 2004, the streets outside City Hall filled with couples from around the country. Expect a repeat — multiplied many times over — beginning 30 days from now.
…my first impression is that the political implications here could be big for November and beyond…First of all, this decision will undoubtedly be used by the Republican Party to try to re-energize its base. Secondly, it puts the Democratic Party in an uncomfortable position. The party has largely tried to split the baby by opposing outright legalization of gay marriage, which is still very dangerous politically, and supporting civil unions as an equitable solution. But this decision says civil unions are not the same thing as marriage and shouldn’t be treated that way. It’ll be very interesting to see what the reaction is from the party and the presidential candidates.
As usual, the lazy critics are uninformed. The California court has not over-ruled the legislature: in fact, the legislature has voted for full marriage equality twice already. And the court has not "created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the same point I’ve made in the past; isn’t constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple’s rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?
One other political note: the Republican governor of the state, Arnold, has already come out against the ballot initiative designed to reverse this ruling. And the initiative will not be able to affect the thousands of marriage licenses that will be granted before then. So the legislature, the governor and the court have all now supported equality. So back to the people … for one last chance to keep the stigma in place.
Two early passages in the California decision stand out. First: this is a technical question about whether the separate-but-equal domestic partnership law violates California’s constitution, not about enacting civil marriage itself:
It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution…
Those are the court’s italics, not mine. But on the deeper question, the court is unequivocal in arguing that our modern understanding of sexual orientation – that it is an orientation, not a choice, an identity and not an act – makes the equal protection of gay families a core value:
In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that 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. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.
The Court also argues that the strict scrutiny standard should apply. Why?
Although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.
(Photo: Stuart Gaffney (L) and his partner John Lewis hold a California flag in front of the California Supreme Court May 15, 2008 in San Francisco, California. The California Supreme Court voted 4-3 to overturn a ban on gay marriage in California making it the second state where gays and lesbians can marry. By Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.)
This is manna for the Obama campaign, sent straight from Heaven. Who wouldn’t want to run against this president this November? By conflating Bush and McCain on this, the White House has done the Democrats a massive favor.
Because he was tortured. Simple as that.
