I’ve read the Prop 8 ruling, which was of course announced this afternoon.
And you know what? I found it boring.
This is not the first court to rule that a ban on marriage for same-sex couples violates the Constitution. Courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Hawaii, and, of course, California, have issued similar rulings before, and judges in New York and New Jersey have put forth the same arguments in dissenting opinions. The arguments for marriage equality have been put forth over and over again. How many different ways are there of stating the obvious?
And that is why the arguments are boring — because they’re so obvious. Of course we deserve the right to marry. How can anyone not understand this?
And yet a large but steadily shrinking portion of the country doesn’t seem to get it. Or just plain refuses to.
It’s not really about marriage. It’s about thinking that gay people are just not as good as straight people.
To quote Judge Walker:
In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.
Not everyone who opposes marriage equality is a gay-hater. Not all of them spew out lies like Maggie Gallagher, who must be a really unhappy and unloved person to spend so much time trying to prevent other people from being happy.
Many people who oppose marriage equality say they have no problem with gay people. They may even say they like gay people. They may even say they like me. They may have gay friends or gay workers and think that they’re perfectly nice people.
Hey, they have such great fashion sense and they’re so entertaining to watch! But, you know, they don’t deserve the same rights that we have. Because, I like them and all, but gay couples are still not as good as real couples. Two men or two women together just aren’t as real or good as a man and woman’s relationship.
I like gay people, but I sure hope my son or daughter doesn’t turn out to be one!
They don’t realize that this doesn’t make any sense, and that it is in fact contradictory. If you oppose marriage equality, then you oppose gay people. If you think, even in a small part of your brain, that gay people are not as good as straight people, then you oppose gay people.
Don’t patronize me. If you don’t think I deserve equal rights, then you have no respect for me, and you have no respect for gay people. Don’t pretend that you do. I don’t want to be friends with you.
So yes, this decision was boring. Nothing new here. Just the same old, crystal clear, logical, obvious arguments.
Even if this case gets to the Supreme Court and we lose — come on, Anthony Kennedy, we’re counting on you! — Judge Walker’s decision will still be right. People need to read it, so they can understand the obvious, self-evident truths.
Stating the obvious is not always interesting. But it is often necessary.
Reading this, I started to wonder why people make the arguments they make — not the crazies who think homosexuality is just wrong, but the examples you’ve set out. I was thinking about my own family. My grandparents are unapologetically homophobic. It isn’t that they are against gay people, per se, they just would rather not need to know any. (The same way in which they are racist.) I think this is very much a generational thing.
My parents, well, they certainly have their moments. My dad seems genuinely scared of homosexuality. And I have not spoken to them explicitly, but I think regardless of this, they are okay with gay marriage, but they would rather not have their children be gay.
And this brought me to the question: How do people reconcile the “I want everyone to have equal rights, I just don’t want anyone I’m related to to be in that group!” I’m cautiously optimistic that part of it is generational and will die off, and part of it is actually the thought of “I want my kids to have a family and I want to be grandparents,” and this latter thought will actually be a moot point when gay marriage is blanketly accepted — if not acceptable — and homosexuality will not only not be a bar to family, but will lead to just as many happy families as “traditional” relationships.
And as I press “submit,” I am not sure if my musings are merely ramblings or make any sense, but it was the thought that came into my head and I decided to share…
I remember the Iowa ruling was interesting for the way it discussed the plaintiffs as individuals, as fellow Iowans, and for the way it talked about the state’s legacy in civil rights. I wonder if federal court decisions are simply more bland, just the facts.
So tired of being a second class citizen. And I hate to think that prick Scalia gets to vote on this issue after all of the homophobic crap he has openly espoused.
Not everyone who opposes marriage equality is a gay-hater.
This is not true. If one opposes marriage equality, one necessarily hates gays.
@homer:
If this makes it to the Supreme Court, then Scalia’s opinion I think will be very interesting. He pretty much confessed in Lawrence v. Texas that the constitutional justifications for denying gay marriage have been effectively demolished in principle if not yet in fact. I cannot imagine him actually voting to allow same-sex marriage, but I am very interested in how he would argue it based on the precedent that has already been established.
In the last few years, precedent has rarely kept justices from doing what they feel is right, no matter where they are on the spectrum: overruling campaign finance reform (reversing precedent just six years old); overturning anti-sodomy laws (seventeen-year precedent); upholding a ban on partial birth abortion (seven-year precedent).
The only instance in recent memory in which precedent seemed to have any value was when the Court upheld the reading of Miranda rights, in an opinion written by, of all people, Rehnquist. Scalia and Thomas dissented. And they’ve long expressed a desire to overrule Roe v. Wade. Justices can always find a way around precedent.
Remember that Walker was a Republican and a corporate lawyer (i.e., worked for the bad guys) at Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro before George H. W. put him on the federal bench. Given his biography, his opinion (which doesn’t, I agree, set the world on fire) isn’t bad. Besides, the frequent references to George Chauncey’s testimony suggest that he knows good stuff when he sees it.
Yay! For once *I* not the pessimistic one!
But seriously: I assumed Scalia will go against the precedent he himself identified and vote against marriage equality when it comes to it. I’m just really looking forward to reading his reasoning to justify it. :)