What we’ve seen over the last few years, as wingnuts stumble to codify discrimination into state constitutions, is that the laws inevitably have adverse benefits well beyond limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. In Michigan, the state ban on same-sex marriage eliminated domestic partner benefits, for example. Here in California, because partners will be allowed to marry starting June 17, if the constitutional amendment passes in November it’s completely unclear what would happen to those legal marriages. But there’s another possibility that would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
Should voters approve the measure, (USC con law expert David B.) Cruz said, offering another potential outcome, it could inadvertently affect traditional marriages. That’s because the amendment would undo only part of the court’s decision — allowing gay couples to marry — but not the rest, which says that same-sex couples cannot be recognized differently than opposite-sex couples, he said.
“If you’ve got those two rules — that you can’t let them marry, but you can’t give different options to gay and straight couples — then one possible outcome, if the amendment were to pass, is that no one could get married in California,” Cruz said.
Some experts found that scenario highly unlikely, saying such a reading of the decision would be much too technical — and cause too much chaos.
I don’t find that to be technical – in fact you would have to give an intellectually dishonest reading of the law NOT to come to that conclusion.
One county is taking this “no more marriages” thing quite literally – and it’s shameful.
Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett has announced that her office will stop performing all weddings a few days before June 17, the date that same-sex couples can legally apply for marriage licenses.
Barnett’s staff processes marriage licenses for hundreds of Kern County residents each year and it will continue to do, for both straight and gay couples, beginning June 17 as required by law, she said in a written statement. But as of June 13, the staff will no longer officiate at civil ceremonies for an extra $30 fee.
Officials cited financial reasons for the decision. But internal memos between a high-ranking official in Barnett’s office and a conservative Christian legal defense fund, published in the Bakersfield Californian this week, indicate that Barnett may have acted on principle rather than for financial reasons.
As long as Barnett is officiating no marriages instead of only straight ones, it’s not discriminatory. And the same goes for the state, according to the most honest reading of the relevant statutes.
The idiots who think they’re defending marriage by trying to narrow its definition to one man and one woman are actually trying to do nothing but eliminate it.
We all knew this was inevitable, but now it’s official: the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will appear on the November ballot.
An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure’s sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.
The measure, known as the California Marriage Protection Act, would amend the state constitution to “provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.
OK, fine. Bring it on. We’re going to win this thing. And the benefit will rebound on those Democrats who believe in equality and justice.
The California wedding industry is about to see a major influx of dollars. Starting June 17, “Party A” and “Party B” will fill out the new forms from the state Office of Vital Records. This is of course leads to another party, a wedding reception. Companies are already starting to gear up their advertising, hoping to get a healthy share of all of that cash. Macy’s put a huge ad in the LAT. WashBlade has the image:
The Los Angeles Times ran a Macy’s ad today showing two mingling wedding rings with the following message: “First comes love. Then comes marriage. And now it’s a milestone every couple in California can celebrate.”
I imagine the wingnuts are firing up their boycott machine.
Thanks to the new governor in New York, we are likely to see a decent amount of wedding tourism. NYT:
Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.
In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”
The directive was issued prior to the court ruling and it is interesting that it took so long for this to be made public. Nevertheless, this does mean that many a gay New Yorker will make a trip to California to fill out their Party A and Party B forms and then return home to get the 1,300 rights that the Republican controlled NY State Senate refuses to give them. Sure they could drive over to Massachusetts, but I have to say there are many prettier places to get married out here than in MA. No offense to the Bay Staters.
For the first time in the poll’s history, the Field Poll reveals that gay marriage is favored by a majority of Californians: 51-42. On the ballot initiative, it seems to be going down at a 43%-51% clip. The full poll should be out tomorrow morning.
People are probably going to fixate on the hard numbers in this latest poll on marriage equality from the LA Times, showing the constitutional amendment passing by 54-35. However, there are a few additional items to consider.
• We all know that initiatives need to be well ahead to start before the advertising ramps up and the No side chips away at the lead. This poll would traditionally signal an initiative in the danger zone. However, the initial polls for Prop. 22 in 2000 were at 58%, and it rose to 61% by election day. Opinions may be fairly hardened on this one.
• In the internals, however, there is much good news for marriage equality advocates.
More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.
That’s really, really good news. 54% say same-sex relationships are not morally wrong, and 59% say that “as long as the two love each other, it doesn’t matter” what gender the two people are. It suggests that the only hurdle is the terminology of “gay marriage,” based on lingering tradition. I think that can be cleared to a degree.
• There’s more confirmation that this is generational.
Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court’s decision to overturn the state’s current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.
Considering that the likely Presidential nominee is poised to bring Americans under 45 to the polls in record numbers, it’s certainly better to be on the side that appeals to them.
• If Arnold’s opposition to the measure is publicized, which is likely, that does seem to change minds:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two bills sanctioning gay marriage, has said that he respects the court’s decision and that he will not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Californians were split on his stance, with 45% agreeing and 46% disagreeing.
I think this is a pretty good place to be considering the circumstances. The marriage equality movement has powerful advocates and the weight of justice and fairness on their side. It’s whether enough people have gotten used to the concept by November. I think the poll shows that’s very possible.
Lest you think there was a chance that the initiative to take away my and my fellow GLBTers right to get married here in California wouldn’t have enough valid signatures, the signatures are being approved at a higher rate than normal and looks like it will easily make it on the ballot.
The verification data on the initiaitve that would ban gay marriage is instructive. It shows that the initiative turned in more than 1.1 million signatures for random sampling. So far the verification rate is very good — over 83 percent on more than 20,000 signatures that have been checked. If that rate holds, the measure should qualify easily for the November ballot. (In the signature biz, 70 percent).
Meanwhile, Arnold Schwarzenegger had an interesting exchange with a gay man who proudly told the governor he had already made an appointment to marry his partner of 22 years at SF City Hall. He asked Arnold about his position on the initiative. It is along the same lines as what he has been saying and illustrates how complicated and twisted his rhetoric has been. (flip it)
Well, first of all, I respect the court’s opinion, which I think was very important, to not just look at it from a point, do I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman or not, but that it looks at the constitutionality of the whole issue. And constitutionally they said it was not right to tell people you can’t do that. Everyone should be treated equally. I think this is a very good way of approaching it, and it’s the fairest way of approaching it, and that’s why I said I respect their opinion. And, you know, I’m wishing everyone good luck with their marriages, and I hope that California’s economy is booming because everyone is going to come here and get married. (Applause) I think all of this is great.
Parsing here, we see that Arnold does not support marriage equality personally, but respects a court ruling that was about the constitutionality of barring same sex marriages. Though he is anti-gay marriage, he is still wishing those getting married good luck. It is strange and makes you wonder what he is really saying behind closed doors. The line about increasing the economy has already made some waves. Indeed this should been a boon, even if on scale it is small, but there will be more tourist dollars spend here and it will encourage more gay couples to move or stay here in California.
And I think — and I’m against changing the Constitution. I’m against the ballot initiative that some are trying to put on the ballot. (Applause) Because it’s unnecessary. I think that we have rules in place and after the decision was made to then change the rules because you’re not happy with the outcome, I don’t believe that’s the right way to go. So I think that — and may I remind you, I have said in the past — you know, I see a marriage between a man and a woman. But that’s my opinion. I don’t want to force that opinion on anyone. So I respect that opinion, and I think we should live with that and everyone should move forward in the right way.
Yeah, I know, he isn’t being that clear here. However, the general message is don’t be a sore loser. I doubt that will convince many people, but the language about moving forward is productive.
Marriage equality came up as an issue on the campaign trail today. Instead of being in the Senate to vote for increased benefits for our veterans John McCain was on Ellen’s couch telling her that he doesn’t think she should get married. Once again he is flip-flopping on the issue. HuffPo has a good piece up with a bunch of good links giving the background on McCain twisting himself in even more knots than Schwarzenegger. In it is this video from Brave New Films.
Ellen will be a wonderful person to really humanize this issue. She has a huge reach through her show and makes waves any time she talks about her relationship with Portia. Their wedding this summer will be a great opportunity to message about the need to protect their right to be married. I think Ellen recognizes this and we will hear more from her about her private life.
• Do read Robert in Monterey’s report about Abel Maldonado, Don Perata’s best buddy, running as a write-in candidate in the Democratic primary to stall an attempt to get an opponent on the November ballot. First of all, this is an example of why crossfiling should be banned once and for all. Second, Abel Maldonado is a snake and I can now see why Don Perata would knock on doors for him. Apparently, neither of them have much interest in the democratic process.
• Arnold thinks the legalization of gender-neutral marriage will be a boost to the sluggish economy, but I hope he’s not basing his entire budget on a sharp uptick in gay weddings. I mean, there are only so many Mr. Sulus rich enough to have that surge register more than a blip. By the way, good for Mr. Sulu. And good for Ellen DeGeneres for telling Straight Talk Express where to shove it.
• Lucas mentioned this, but Darrell Issa got in the middle of a heated exchange between Henry Waxman and EPA Adminstrator Stephen Johnson over the EPA’s breaking the Clean Air Act. Emptywheel has video:
• Why Fabian Nuñez is claiming racial bias at this late date over questions about his travel practices is completely beyond me. And he’s taken to Spanish-language television for these accusations to stoke divisiveness in the Latino community, too. It’s so counterproductive, as well as misleading.
• Speaking of Spanish-speaking media, this is an older story, but it’s fascinating to me that the Spanish-language channels in LA are so much more substantive than the English-language ones, featuring longer, “more deeply reported” pieces.
• We could see a settlement very shortly on prison overcrowding in the state which would not require early release. There are some decent components to this deal, but it basically gives everyone three more years to clean up their act, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it just puts us in the same siutation come 2011. The policies needed are well-known; the political will remains elusive.
• The Bay Area AQMD passed a carbon tax for businesses that emit greenhouse gases. It’s “not enough to change behavior,” one expert said, but it does presage what may be coming down the pike for polluters. Whether you get there through selling carbon permits at auction or with a tax, the bottom line is that pollution is going to cost enough money to alter business’ approach to engaging in it. This is a good step.
• Interesting that we denied the endorsement to Rep. Laura Richardson (CA-37) on the same day that she is forced to defend herself against allegations that she walked away from her foreclosed home in Sacramento. It sounds like the Congresswoman renegotiated the loan, but the conservative fever swamps are all over this one (check the comments in that LAT blog post). She did buy the half-million-dollar home with no money down, and then left Sacramento almost immediately after winning election to fill the open seat in Congress.
One of the most important progressive equal rights issues for me is Marriage Equality for same sex couples. Why? Because it’s one of the last Government sanctioned forms of discrimination.
This week there was a huge victory for Marriage Equality with the California Supreme Court striking down the State’s 2000 ban on gay marriage.
One of the first knee jerk reactions of Republicans in the State was to declare that the Court was legislating from the bench, just a bunch of “activist” judges (Of course the minor detail they forget to mention in their partisan bigot filled hissy fit is that 6 of the 7 judges were appointed by Republican Governors). They also argue that this will lead to the legalization of “polygamous and incestuous marriage”. Another whopper is that the ruling undermines the voters because the bill was passed with 61% supporting the ban on gay marriage. And of course the best argument is that we as citizens must protect marriage and I wrote earlier in the week, Protect Marriage? From What Exactly?.
So, what is all the fuss about? It’s a sea change and Republicans can sense that they will probably lose this battle in the end. This is when all politics become local politics. A precedent in such a large State like California will resonate with other States who have yet to take this issue head on.
Here is an excerpt from a blog post by a local Republican Assemblyman.
The California Supreme Court’s Supremely Bad Decision
By Chuck Devore
The California State Supreme Court, lead by Chief Justice Ron George, repealed California law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman as set forth by both the Legislature and the people through the passage of Prop. 22.
The Court’s ruling is breathtaking for its overreach. Using words like “dignity” (23 times), “liberty” (34 times), and “privacy” (37 times) to describe same sex partners full right to marry, the Court overturned millennia of experience and more than 150 years of state law precedence. (For the ruling, see: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/op… In so doing, their strained justifications threw the door wide open to polygamous and incestuous marriage. How? By using the flawed logic that marriage is none of the government’s business insofar as marriage should be afforded to all to afford people privacy, liberty and dignity. The same weak logic can be applied to the “plural” marriages of the Fundamentalist LDS cult in Texas or to a devout Muslim citizen of Saudi Arabia who wishes to emigrate to California with his four wives. In fact, due to the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, both a Fundamentalist LDS cult member and a devout Muslim could argue that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion are being violated by any restriction on polygamy – after all, their “dignity,” “liberty,” and “privacy” would be violated otherwise.
Lovely isn’t it? I love how Republicans can use words such as “dignity” as being something supremely evil when talking about the individual rights of another human being. And of course, they go into the straw man argument that by legalizing same sex marriage the next thing you know you will find people wanting to marry their brother or attempting to turn their personal life into a legal version of “Big Love”.
Ultimately the most important issue here is fighting back on these poorly argued oppositions and labeling them for what they are, flat out bigotry and homophobia. The Chief Justice in this case understood why it was so very important that the right decision come down from the highest court in the State. He said it was the hardest decision of his life.
But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.
“I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
…
Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: “I really don’t know.”
He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.
California’s decision, in a case called Perez vs. Sharp, preceded the U.S. Supreme Court’s action on the issue by 19 years. Even after that ruling, Californians passed an initiative that would permit racial discrimination in housing. The state high court again responded by overturning the law, George said.
Rather than ignoring voters, “what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people’s will,” George said.
To me this is the most compelling argument that Justice George makes for his ruling, it’s not about subverting the people’s will, just as we’ve seen in the past, the “people” have been wrong before. It’s about upholding the State’s constitution and in that way supporting the ultimate will of the people.
I believe that the new initiative that Republicans are fighting to get on the ballot in November will not pass this time though. Even in my conservative area of town in the local paper of record, the OC Register, the online poll they have shows 52% supporting Gay Marriage. In the article I quoted Justice George in, the margin was much larger, 72% of respondents support Gay marriage. Now granted, many Republicans are hoping that such a ballot initiative will bring out Republicans in droves but they forget something just as important, many new Democrats will also be coming out to vote and they will more than likely vote against change the State Constitution to ban Gay Marriage.
And another factor to consider in California for this November? Republicans in the State are stepping away from wedge issues like Gay Marriage.
“I think we have bigger fish to fry than do people have a right, if they are gay, to get married or not,” Schwarzenegger said. “I think that we should think about fixing the budget system and think about fixing the health care system and rebuilding California.”
And you know what, I agree with the Governator. We do have bigger issues to deal with and as it stands, gays will be able to marry legally in this State if the initiative in November doesn’t pass. I hope that moderate Republicans will heed the Governor’s logic and reject yet another ban that violates the State Constitution.
I would love to see my gay and lesbian friends have the right to marry so they too can have the same protections that many married straight couples take for granted. I also hope then that in such a case we can put more energy into issues such as universal health care and education. Wouldn’t it be nice to say we’ve moved passed the issue altogether?
California Gay Marriage made legal! Press Briefing & Rally
“Full and equal recognition of our relationships means that we have crossed a final barrier toward full and equal citizenship, at least in California. This day has been years in the making, but we know we can’t celebrate for long…
today we celebrate. Today we savor the full and equal recognition of our relationships, our families, and our responsibilities that come with it. But tomorrow, we organize. Our equality did not come easily. We will not let it go. – Ed Bennett, President of Sacramento Stonewall Democrats
…
Dan Chmielewski, on May 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am Said:
Its a great day for equal rights and personal freedom and liberty. Nice job on this Andrew
…
The Lovable Curmudgeon, on May 15th, 2008 at 10:32 am Said:
I had prepared for the worst. Now I’m numb. Truly a historic day.
Does anyone know of any celebrations scheduled in OC?
(And my security word was “equality”)
…
Sean H. Mill, on May 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am Said:
This is truly a great day. California should have been on the forefront of this and led the way in this fight for equal rights. Being the second state isn’t half bad though. I am proud to be a Californian today!
…
Vern Nelson, on May 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am Said:
SWEEET! Equality and justice, as they do too infrequently, lurch forward another step! And TEH GAY ROCKS!!!
…
OCDemoGrl, on May 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am Said:
It is great to see discrimination take a hit today. To my best friend, a proud gay American, who said he would not see gay marriage in his life-time, the door has swung open in your favor. Go forth and be marry!
…
Drew C., on May 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am Said:
This is absolutely awesome! Coming from working on the Equality for All campaign this is great progress…Congratulations to everyone in the LGBT community, I am so exited for you guys! As I always said, “Live better, promote equality!” Oh yea…thanks for coming out to phone bank for equality Andrew!
…
Bill Spaulding, on May 15th, 2008 at 12:55 pm Said:
Great news indeed. It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood.
Celebrate in Long Beach this weekend at the Pride Festival both days and the Parade on Sunday morning.
Celebrate by donating to and/or volunteering for candidates who support the community.
Celebrate by helping in whatever way you can to make sure the initiative likely to be on the ballot this November fails to undo the court’s decision.
(Great analysis on the voter pool. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)
So one of the arguments I’ve been seeing against gay marriage is that the 2000 ballot initiative Prop. 22 showed what the “will of the people” is. Except… a closer look at what happened back then makes it more ambiguous as to what will actually happen this November.
First, yes, Prop. 22 passed, 61.4%-38.6%. But it wasn’t on the ballot in November 2000, but rather in March 2000, in the primary election. Now, here’s the thing. By then, Al Gore had already clinched the nomination against Bill Bradley, so there wasn’t really an impetus for Democrats to go vote (much like you’re seeing the GOP say now for McCain). Meanwhile, the race between Bush and McCain was still going on, though winding down.
And so, you had this situation where, in a blue state like California, Republican turnout well exceeding Democratic turnout. 3.2 million people voted for Democratic candidates (almost all for Al Gore), while over 4.1 million voted in the Republican primary, which Bush won by less than 400,000 votes over McCain. (And WTF, Lyndon LaRouche listed as a Democrat?? Ewwwwww.)
Now, as to how each party voted, the best we have is the exit poll (.pdf) from the L.A. Times. And the results may surprise you.
Blacks were actually MORE in favor of banning gay marriage than whites were. 58% of whites voted in favor of Prop. 22, while 62% of blacks did so, and 65% of Latinos did so.
Among Republicans, as you would expect, 80% voted in favor of it. But among Democrats, it wasn’t anywhere near 80% voting against it. In fact, only 57% of Democrats voted against it, with 43% voting in favor of it. And Independents went for the proposition too, 58%-42%. While 74% of liberal Democrats voted against it, among moderate Democrats, it was a blowout in the other direction, with 61% of them voting in favor of banning gay marriage. Moderate Republicans were actually less inclined to support it, with Prop. 22 only getting 56% of them.
And since people are bringing up religion, it was the Protestants, and not the Catholics, that broke heavily in favor of banning gay marriage. 75% of Protestants voted for the ban, while only 59% of Catholics voted for it. Conversely, 76% of Jews voted against the ban.
Regionally, the Bay Area was the only part of California where there was more opposition to the ban than support, if only barely. 51% voted against it in the Bay Area. Even in Los Angeles County, it easily passed with 58% voting for it. And the rest of California voted for it at an even higher clip.
So there’s your baselines from 2000. Had it been a “normal” primary that March, where both parties still had actual primaries to compete in, the numbers would’ve been closer, but Prop. 22 still likely would’ve passed, given how many moderate Democrats were voting in favor of it, and given how it also easily won among Independents.
So, what does that portend for 2008? We’ll see. Certainly young people now are much more open to gay marriage than older folk, so if they turn out in record numbers for the general election too, that’ll be a big swing in shooting down the proposed constitutional amendment. Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger coming out against the ban now is going to play a role, though it remains to be seen just how big of an impact his voice will have in this.
The recent SurveyUSA polling shows promise, with it tied as to whether they supported the court’s decision. But something’s odd… while young people agreed with the court’s ruling 50%-38%, you have 51% supporting amending the state constitution to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Those numbers seem to be flipped. Perhaps the wording of the question was confusing, and people thought you had to amend the constitution to allow gays to get married?
Anyway, these numbers show in what areas the pro-gay marriage groups are going to need to work on to stop the amendment this November.
Dave alluded to the conservatives’ reaction to the ruling and I want to take some time to unpack their arguments here. The Flash Report has a “special report” from Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute. She writes:
Four elitist, activist judges decided that they would redefine marriage by overturning the voter-approved Proposition 22. Out of thin air, the court created a “fundamental right” to gay marriage, equal with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The main issue in this case is not whether marriage should be redefined – marriage is an institution that by its very nature cannot be redefined, regardless of political action. No, the main issue here is whether Californians will allow a handful of justices to impose their radical social agenda on citizens.
We often hear about judicial activism but this case will be recorded as the very definition of the term. These activist judges demonstrated their need for a refresher course in the fundamentals of government and separation of powers.
Let’s take this point by point now, shall we…
As a friend of mine and a real leader in the fight for GLBT equality, Candace Gingrich likes to say when listing things:
A of all, what makes the judges who ruled on this case elitist? I am pretty damn sure they would never use this descriptor had the court ruled in their favor. It is simply a way to discount the opinion of the majority of the court.
B of all, Prop. 22 was statutory. The judges in this case were asked to consider if that law squared with the California Constitution’s equality language. The opinion of the public simply does not matter. As Glen Greenwald writes:
(flip-it…the list goes to H of all)
Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges “overriding” the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue.
C of all, marriage has always been a shifting institution, evolving with society. No longer do we treat women as property, or let men rape their wives. This is from a NYT op-ed back in 2005 called “The Heterosexual Revolution”:
Marriage has been in a constant state of evolution since the dawn of the Stone Age. In the process it has become more flexible, but also more optional. Many people may not like the direction these changes have taken in recent years. But it is simply magical thinking to believe that by banning gay and lesbian marriage, we will turn back the clock.
D of all, the court did not create a “fundamental right” to marriage. They simply stated that whatever straights get to do, so do gays. If the state legislature wants to switch everyone over to civil unions they are free to do so. The key here that the state treats both equally.
E of all, the main issue in this case is whether the California constitution requires all individuals to be treated equally with regards to marriage.
F of all, it does look like the voters will have their say. The initiative that has been submitted and is awaiting approval of the signatures by the Secretary of State would change the California constitution and if that happened, the only way it could be reversed is by changing it again.
G of all, separation of powers worked exactly the way it should with regards to this case. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional or not. That is their job. The public passed a law, and the court gets to rule. Now the governor has to enforce it. That is the way our government works. It is England that needs a refresher course in the fundamentals of the American system of government.
H of all, BRING. IT. ON! I cannot wait for this fight. I will be fighting to protect my rights. You are trying to take away my rights. My generation is slowly but surely replacing yours. We will prevail.
And guess what? It will have absolutely no impact on your life. Your church can do what ever the heck it wants. But I have a dream of someday calling a woman my wife and that I am going to fight like hell to protect it.
