The author James Baldwin reminds us, "For if they take you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night."
As the California Supreme Court prepares to announce their decision regarding whether I, and thousands of others, will be considered human under the laws of California, it seems a good time to remember what is at stake.
It is not only my rights, and the rights of hundreds of thousands of LBGT people that are at stake in this decision. If the Court rules that a fundamental right (to marry the person of your choosing) can be taken away by a bare majority vote, nobody's rights will be secure....
Attorney Ken Starr (who has a troubled history of obsessively seeking to destroy other people's marriages, including his decade-long fetish for the Clintons), argues in support of Proposition 8, that he is merely trying to restore the "historic" marriage laws that were in place when California was founded.
Of course, neither he, nor any of the other supporters of Prop 8, are sincerely claiming that they will abide by the ancient historic marriage laws. Instead, they seek to impose the older restrictions, from an era BEFORE PEOPLE HAD THE RIGHT to marry the person of their choice, only on a minority group when they can get away with it. Ancient marriage laws prohibited divorce (and prohibitted re-marriage), banned interfaith unions or marrying someone from the "wrong" tribe, and had a long list of other requirements, which heterosexual people, including those leading the anti-gay movement, do not genuinely seek to restore as restrictions that straight people must follow. Instead, they seek to impose restrictions only on minority groups, not on themselves. If they can get away with doing this to LBGT people, they can do it to anyone as long as they can amass the votes.
The marriage laws of 150 years ago (the ones Ken Starr says he is trying to re-instate), did not include the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice. That right was established later on (in 1948 in California, and in 1967 nation-wide).
If the California Court rules that any minority group which is the target of prejudice of the moment can be denied a fundamental right by majority vote, nobody's rights will be safe.
Why not a ballot initiative to deny the right to marry to left-handed people? (After all, discrimination against left-handed people also has a long history, and for some, a religious basis). What about a ballot initiative to deny interfaith couples the right to marry? After all, nearly every religion on earth has historically opposed interfaith unions.
This is part of why James Baldwin is right, if they come for me in the morning, they may be coming for you that night. And, it is why it is in the interests of all people to ensure justice and equality -- no matter who is targetted this time.
As for what comes after the Court ruling? Well, as the first openly-lesbian elected official in the city with the largest population of female-female couples in America (Oakland, California) I do have experience winning elections and ideas for a genuine strategy if we have to go back to the ballot. But for that, I'll wait until after the Court issues its ruling...
In the meantime, a reminder that these decisions impact us all, and that no matter what happens, we must continue to work for justice for all.
Best wishes & solidarity,
-Rebecca Kaplan
http://www.KaplanforOakland.org
P.S. I will be sending out email with next steps & strategies after the ruling. To join this email list sign up for the "No on 8" category online at: LINK