Marriage Equality In CA: Justice Won Through Love

Today's effective win of full marriage equality for same-sex couples in California is a wonderful victory in this time of progress for civil rights.

Massachusetts was indeed a breakthrough, but no longer lonely, joined in equal rights law by the more than 36 million citizens of California.

I am so proud of the thousands of volunteers and citizens who have worked for many years to achieve victories like today's.

In 1998 at the University of Connecticut, I led a group of students in proposing the "Marriage Resolution" to the student body government. The result, after much human connection and sharing our feelings and stories, was the official endorsement of equal rights for marriage without regard to sex by the representatives of the students of the largest public university in our state.

I am profoundly grateful for hundreds of communities who have come together, like ours at UConn, and individuals, especially San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom with his courageous and peaceful stand for Truth, issuing marriage licenses in his city in 2004.

Thank every one of you who is reading this. Every time you put Love above Fear and Anger, you contribute to our human family. That's why progress like this happens.

•  jar

  I know it's been diaried a lot today, and I'm especially happy to see Mayer Newsom's on the rec list: http://www.dailykos.com/...

  But this was my personal reaction that I wanted to share.

  by Ryvr on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:22:01 PM PDT

•  Congrats to our gay and lesbian community

  I'm a married straight white guy but I'll fight as hard as I can for you people to have the same rights as everyone else in this country.

  The thought of all the heads exploding on the rightwing lunitic fringe over this (Rush, Fixed News, Ann Coultergeist etc) makes me laugh.

  by Jeff Y on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:26:56 PM PDT

  •  thanks! and

    I believe equal rights is equal rights for all -- we all have some arbitrary characteristic that could be used institutionally against us by wrong-minded people ... a win of equality is a win for all!

    by Ryvr on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:29:11 PM PDT

•  Be careful what you ask for

  The Chief Justice of California, who wrote the opinion, is a consummate Republican politician.  This is another of his efforts to co-opt enough people into ignoring the truly dirty work done by the California Supreme Court.  There are many areas to which folks do not pay attention, such as pro-business and anti-privacy opinions.

  The Court has now satisfied a bunch of progressives who will go about their business, having won "their" big victory.  Of course, there is a ballot initiative coming to this November's ballot to overturn this decision.  Let us remember that in 2004, anti-gay-marriage initiatives were on bsllots across the nation, put there to energize the right-wing base.

  The son of California's Chief Justice is a George W. Bush acolyte.  I suspect the worst.

  by ScarySteve on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:57:28 PM PDT

  •  we must stop the initiative

    People will be receptive to hearing our message of how hurtful that will be to legally revoke the rights of families to marry.

    I did not praise the Court or Justices whom I have not researched sufficiently.

    The decision itself remains highly praiseworthy.

    I am so psyched to have an intelligent multi-tasker like Obama becoming President, because we will not feel we need to compete among our issues.

    by Ryvr on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:04:11 PM PDT

    •  and

      I guess one of your points was that this gives energy to proponents of the mean-spirited ballot initiative, which could have brought out support for Republicans, but after Mississippi this week, I doubt anti-gay bigotry in Cali will be much of a boost to a party that will be struggling to hold onto Alabama seats.

      by Ryvr on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:09:59 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure if I completely understand

    your point...... but I feel that you are at least suggesting that Justice George did this to energize CA republicans and swing CA to McCain.....

    If that is your point, I can understand how you came to that conclusion, but I have just finished reading the 121 page opinion, authored by George and it was just amazing. There is no way that a man could hoodwink his way through 121 pages with the assistance of his clerks and the concurring Justices to nefariously affect the impending election.

    The only theory that I would even being to entertain is: perhaps surmising that they could eventually rule this way, he (and however many other justices are required in CA to grant writ of certiorari in the CA Supreme Court) chose to hear this case know, knowing the effects could wreak havoc on the Democrats.

    But come on..... even this sounds batshit crazy. I just think the opinion is so obvious and clear that even conservatives can't argue against it......

    by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:55:03 PM PDT

    •  hmmmmm.....

      wait, does the CA Supreme Court have the same ability as the US Supreme Court to choose which cases to hear? Do they near 2-3-4 Justices to agree to hear it (grant writ?). I'm an academic, not a lawyer and know fairly little about Constitutional law..... so I'm not sure.....

      I may have been wrong on that one....

      by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:01:53 PM PDT

      •  Oh, and I work

        across the street. I walked into the California State Building and into the Supreme Court clerk's office. I asked for a copy of the ruling and they handed it to me. I will keep it forever.

        Today is quite the day.

        by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:03:59 PM PDT

        •  Procedure

          The Cal. Supremes get to decide which cases to hear, except for appeals in death penalty cases.  By law, death verdicts go directly to them.  They need 4 votes to grant review, which is their version of certiorari.

          The court is incredibly right wing and has been for over 20 years.  Chief Justice George could have retired with full pension years ago but he stays on.  Perhaps it helps his son.

          This one purportedly progressive opinion does not make up for the hundreds (if not thousands) that have diminished rights for all.

          by ScarySteve on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:02:36 AM PDT

          •  Thanks. eom.

            by beatengeneration on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:11:18 AM PDT

          •  ok

            I think you may have some point, but your wording is odd. I take you at your word that this has been an unfavorable court.

            Nonetheless, I think this is clearly a fantastic ruling both in its effect and its approach.

            I can agree that might not negate the sins of other bad rulings, but I think you are wrong to belittle this as "one purportedly progressive opinion."

            by Ryvr on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:12:32 AM PDT