Anderson@Large

CA Supremes Uphold Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In November, California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The ballot initiative passed 52 percent to 48 percent.

Opponents of Prop 8 didn’t like the election outcome and immediately filed lawsuits to overturn the will of the people.

Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court upheld the ban on gay marriage. In a 6-1 decision, the Supremes set aside their “own personal beliefs and values” and ruled:

Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

The Court let stand the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the measure went into effect.

Andy Pugno, chief legal counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said no big deal:

Second, the Court’s decision to continue recognizing those same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses prior to the passage of Prop 8 should be kept in perspective. Remember that a large number of the marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples were for out-of-state residents traveling to California -- which will not be recognized anyway in the vast majority of their home states. Moreover, if California goes as Massachusetts did after legalizing gay marriage, a substantial portion of the still-recognized gay marriages will be dissolved by divorce within a few years. In the end, only a tiny number of gay marriages will continue to be recognized. What really matters is that the vast majority of what was at stake in this case -- the right of the voters to amend the state constitution to restore traditional marriage going forward -- ultimately proved to be a complete victory for us!

While opponents of the ruling are not able to exchange wedding vows, they vow to “win marriage back.” They plan to put an initiative on the ballot in 2010 to restore “marriage equality in California.” This time, they will reach out to African Americans. Their message: Gay marriage is a civil right.

On Saturday, supporters of gay marriage will march from Selma, California to Fresno “in a symbolic sign of respect to the social movements before us.”

In the meantime, gay and lesbian couples have the wedding bell blues.

A Purpose-Driven Outrage

I’m pretty open-minded, but I don’t support same-sex marriage. That said, I understand gays’ outrage that Pastor Rick Warren will give the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Rep. Barney Frank, the first openly gay member of Congress, said on CNN’s “Late Edition”:

Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair. And the president-elect was wrong when he said, well, he invited me to speak; I’m just inviting him to speak.

If he was inviting the Reverend Warren to participate in a forum and to make a speech, that would be a good thing. We should have these. But being singled out to give the prayer at the inauguration is a high honor.

It has traditionally given as a mark of great respect. And, yes, I think it was wrong to single him out for this mark of respect.

Can you imagine if, say, Dr. Bob Jones III were invited in the name of including “a wide range of viewpoints”? Black folks would not “agree to disagree.” Bob Jones University banned interracial dating until 2000. The ban was ended in the wake of a public outcry.

Mind you, I’m not analogizing gay rights to civil rights. Rather, no bigot should be given a platform on such an historic occasion, no matter how many good deeds he has done.

BTW, women also want to drive Pastor Rick from the Inaugural stage:

The Obama camp claims the move represents the President-elect’s commitment to inclusiveness. But, in fact, this is a gesture to reach out to conservatives who opposed President-elect Obama at the expense of women, LGBT Americans, and other progressive voters who overwhelmingly supported him.

It is disrespectful. It is antagonistic. It is a decision that is blatantly at odds with the progressive agenda on which he based his campaign. It is divisive, not inclusive.

This historic election is supposed to be about a vision of a new America – an end to politics of division. And yet President-elect Obama has made a choice to give prominence and pulpit to a promoter of an anti-choice and anti-gay agenda. He has chosen to highlight and give voice to someone who has actively supported the elimination of civil rights. He has chosen a divisive figure to speak out in a moment of prayer, on an historical day of bringing Americans together.

To sign WomenCount’s petition, go here.

San Francisco Democrats

I am in the City by the Bay, where the cable cars climb halfway to the stars. But I have not taken one since the fare was raised to $5.00.

When I moved from San Francisco, I did not leave my heart behind. A city that once was my sanctuary is now a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. It is also a safe haven for the homeless who camp out in doorways surrounded by their sh stuff. That is, when they’re not panhandling and generally making the streets of San Francisco rather grim.

Right now, polls show Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lead John McCain in the Golden State. That’s the good news. There’s also an ominous sign on the horizon.

The California Supreme Court earlier this month overturned the will of the people and sanctioned same-sex marriage. Mind you, I’m old-school so I’m all for loving the one you’re with. That said, I think marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Not so in San Francisco, where 4,000 same-sex marriages were performed at City Hall in 2004. The court stepped in and voided the “marriages.”

Also in 2004, a same-sex marriage initiative on the Ohio ballot was credited with peeling away black voters. In the run-up to the general election, a Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies poll found that 46 percent of African Americans opposed any legal recognition of gay relationships. Indeed, blacks are more conservative about homosexual relationships than the general population.

The Joint Center poll showed President Bush’s approval ratings among African Americans were 30 percent favorable to 67 percent unfavorable. Still, Bush received 16 percent of the black vote in Ohio, up from nine percent in 2000.

Since President Reagan’s reelection campaign, Republicans have used the metaphor “San Francisco Democrats” as code for a party that is out of touch with the values of small town Americans (read: Reagan Democrats).

According to a new Field Poll, a majority of Californians now support legalizing gay marriages. Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo cautioned the support may drop if a proposed initiative qualifies for the ballot. Well, the California Marriage Protection Act will be on the ballot.

If history repeats itself, Democrats may have nightmares knowing they again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.