As one of Middlebury Dems’ representatives of California, I feel that is my duty to celebrate the day’s big decision. In case you’ve been living under a rock or have just been too absorbed with exams today, the California State Supreme Court overturned a law past by the legislature in 1977 and a 2000 voter referendum making gay and lesbian marriages legal in the Golden State.
I see this as a big victory for the biggest Civil Rights issues of our time. However, this has to be put in perspective because there will be a constitutional amendment in November that could potentially overturn this ruling.
There is an undeniable trend that people are moving towards accepting homosexual rights, but nevertheless, from 2003-2006, support for gay marriage was still only at 43%. Luckily Obama is nine points up in California, so the turnout this initiative will create shouldn’t make a difference in the presidential election, although it will probably affect local races.
I’ve also been wondering about the best strategy for the movement for homosexual rights. The mayor of my great city, Gavin Newson briefly legalized gay marriage in SF for a few months in 2004, but on a national level, some have argued that this move had adverse effects for the movement. Personally, I do think what Gavin Newsom did was right, but at the same time I understand that it might not have been the most intelligent political move for the movement.
But what about this decision by the California Supreme Court? Although I agree with the legal arguments of the decision (to the extent that I understand them), I recognize that because of the perception of “activist judges” this ruling could definitely have adverse effects nationally.
And yet one has to what is right. On some level, if people are homophobic that’s there problem. In the words of MLK, “The time to do right is always right.” If not now and us then when and who?
—
On a more personal note, this is a very exciting time for my Mom and her press room who are covering the story. Since my Mom works for a wire service, you could very well be reading her words in the news stories you read but unfortunately she only gets credit for them on alternative news sources.
—-
Finally, this brings up the issue of judicial philosophy. I thought that it was interesting to learn that McCain should shy away from his originalist view of the judicial philosophy, because after all, he was born in a US territory and with an originalist interpretation he wouldn’t be qualified to run for President.
Unfortunately, I expect the amendment will pass as it already has in so many other states:
http://www.idosupportmarriage.com/uploads/Definition_of_Marriage_color_map_of_states_4_07.jpg
But the good for the court. Someday in our lifetime the SCOTUS will make a similar decision and that’ll be the end of Jim-Crow nouveau. Until then, God bless the people of Massachusetts.