Another political post. Skip if you don’t care to hear it. 😉
Unfortunately, as many had expected, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8. At least they also upheld the marriages that were made during the brief time it was legal so my friends and the other roughly 18000 couples who married then have not been divorced by judicial decree. But it is a sad day nonetheless for my GLBT brothers and sisters.
I hope that this results in the community getting an organized political arm going so we can get this overturned at the ballot box either this year or 2010. Various protests are planned across the country today and then the big one on May 30th. If you have the time and inclination, I urge you to get involved.
The debate is on whether to put something on the ballot for 2010 or wait till 2012. I say it’s a no brainer – the sooner the better, THIS year if we could get our collective act together – but what do I know?
Some good news, Obama’s SCOTUS nominee is Sonia Sotomayor, who would be the first Latina on the Court if confirmed.
So, go hug your family. If you are legally married, be thankful you are and hug your spouse today.
Update: The blog-o-sphere is an interesting place… Getting readings from lawyers who think there is more to be happy about in this ruling than just the fact that the justices didn’t annul the marriages of 18000 couples. Basically, they are arguing that the Supremes’ ruled same-sex couples are still entitled to all the rights and obligations that married couples have, they just cannot call it “marriage.” Which closes the door to any challenges to the rights of same-sex domestic partnerships or those couples married before the ban using Prop 8 as the tool. If this is true, it is a good thing, because there was a lot of worry that the language of Prop 8 could lead to such challenges. So, even though Prop 8 says Jim and Joe cannot marry, if they have a domestic partnership, Joe’s employer cannot refuse to grant Jim insurance benefits if said employer offers them to married and domestically partnered straight couples. Etc.
Now I am not fond of the “separate but equal” feel of this or the folks out there saying “let ’em have the word “marriage” so long as we have the rights” or “the government should get out of the marriage business and everyone gets civil unions.” Because separate is never equal. The word marriage is not the sole property of religion (and one flavor of religion least of all) having been a secular term as long as it has been a religious one. And they can have my marriage license when the pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Being “married” is a universally understood concept with a host of connotations that “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” just do not convey. I, for one, am not ready to concede that concept to the forces of bigotry.