As diaried yesterday by indiemcemopants, the Defendant-Intervenors in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial to determine the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, have filed a motion requesting a stay pending appeal--legal speak for "you've made your decision, but don't enforce it until we've had a chance to challenge it."
indiemcemopants made a valid point about just how ludicrous was the claim of "irreparable harm" cited by the Defendant-Intervenor--as if being legally married and having that right taken away by yet another court would be a harm somehow more irreparable than never being allowed to be married at all. But the part of the Argument that starts on page 4, line 12 of the Motion is just classic:
Not only would redefining marriage to include same-sex couples eliminate California's ability to provide special recognition and support to those relationships that uniquely further the vital procreative interests marriage has traditionally served, it would indisputably change the public meaning of marriage...And such a redefinition of marriage will likely result in its further, and perhaps complete, deinstitutionalization.
Let's recap this argument. Earlier in the very same motion, the Defendant-Intervenor states explicitly that allowing same-sex marriage does not affect the procreative interest of opposite-sex marriage (Argument, page 4, line 7f.):
Same-sex relationships, by contrast, neither advance nor threaten this interest [of procreation] in the way that opposite-sex relations do.
And yet, there they go the next paragraph claiming that same-sex marriage will lead to the end of marriage itself. Why? Because if same-sex couples can get married, then good, old-fashioned hetero baby-making marriages will no longer be "special"--and if marriage isn't special for straight people, then it may as well not exist!
These bigots don't view marriage through the same lens. Rather, they view it the way a four-year-old might view a plastic toy. If they have to share that toy, or if their sibling has the same toy, then they may just as well throw the toy on the floor and have a tantrum. Because in the end, it wasn't about whether or not they were actually able to enjoy the benefits of the toy--rather, it was about how they were the only ones able to do so.
In his work Black Reconstruction, WEB Dubois coined the term "psychic wages of whiteness" to refer to the tendencies of economically disadvantaged whites to go against their own economic interests in support of policies benefiting wealthier whites and oppressing blacks. They may have been poor and lacking any hope of social mobility in a stratified society, but they were better, dammit, because they were white, and that counted for something.
And now, it seems, the Defendant-Intervenors are seeking to turn the psychic wages of straightness into a legal argument to support Proposition 8. They are legitimately arguing that straight people will not get married and have children unless they're the only ones who can. I'm not sure what type of mentality that takes. Maybe Andy Pugno, the lead counsel for the Prop. 8 team, is the type of person who orders milkshakes in front of lactose-intolerant friends, just because he can.
But here's a message for Andy Pugno. On the day I end up getting married, I'm not going to be thinking about how special I am because other people can't, or aren't. I'm going to be thinking about my future wife coming down the aisle--as, I imagine, would anyone else in that situation. And my joy at that moment would only be enhanced by the knowledge that all of my friends and loved ones--gay and straight--would be able to partake of it themselves.