Some quick thoughts on the wonderful California decision (still reading it):
It took me forever to find the actual decision of the court. I had to skim through the first seven pages before I found something resembling a ruling. Then on the next page it said something about not needing to deal with the word “marriage” and I thought maybe it was more like the New Jersey decision, pro-rights but not mandating the word. Thoroughly confused and figuring I wasn’t going to find anything definitive in the next few pages, I tried to find the end of the opinion but couldn’t (the end is in the middle, as the main opinion is followed by some concurrences/dissents). Finally found the end and realized the good news.
In six months, Californians will likely be voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Some people expect a backlash against the court’s decision. Some people, those who are anti-gay or who are against marriage equality for gay couples, will feel angered and energized by the decision and be even more eager to turn out to vote in favor of the amendment. Also, the vote will be happening in the context of the Obama-McCain race on the same day’s ballot; if McCain runs strong in California, this could help get out the Republican vote.
But I think this decision helps those of us on the side of equality more than those on the other side. Over the next six months, gay couples will be marrying in California. And Californians will see that gay couples have gotten legally married and the world hasn’t fallen apart. Just as important, there are many people who might oppose same-sex marriages in theory but who are good at heart, who have empathy for their fellow human beings, and who are not going to want to take marriage away from couples who have already been legally married under the imprimatur of the California constitution. They’re not going to want to tell the children of those couples, sorry, your parents are no longer married. This is different from the legally dicey San Francisco marriages four years ago; this is really and truly legal.
This is really and truly wonderful.
I also have to have a little hope that Schwarzenegger’s stance opposing the amendment will carry a lot of weight. Certainly national figures like Pelosi will (I hope) come out against the amendment and having the Republican poster boy for foreign-born presidents suddenly saying he would oppose the amendment can only be good for us.
Right?
Now someone tell the NYS Apellate court (or whichever is highest here) to rethink their decision.
The Presidential election, which was already guaranteed to be vicious, can now be expected to increse in acrimony a thousand fold.
Couldn’t they have waited on this ruling until after November?
No – they were required to issue a decision within 90 days.
OK. Couldn’t they have arranged the order of their case load so that this issue wouldn’t come up until after November?
I guess they could have, had they been so inclined.
Well, it’s too late for what if’s. I am so not looking forward to the next sixth months.