The New York Times has a good editorial today on Schwarzenegger’s veto.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a profile in timidity this week when he vowed to veto a pioneering bill authorizing gay marriage in California. The bill, which both houses of the Legislature passed by narrow margins, would expand the definition of marriage to include a civil contract between two people, not exclusively a man and woman. This was an enlightened and fair-minded stand that made California’s Legislature the first in the nation to approve same-sex marriages.

Too bad Mr. Schwarzenegger could not find the courage to sign the bill into law. Instead, even before receiving the bill, he announced a tortured rationale for vetoing it. For years, social conservatives have accused judges of deciding social issues that should be left to legislators. Now Mr. Schwarzenegger wants to ignore his Legislature and leave gay marriage to the courts or the voters at large to decide.

He relies on a fig leaf: five years ago, Californians voted overwhelmingly for a ballot measure that recognized only heterosexual marriages as valid. A statement by the governor’s press office declared, “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.”

That ignores the fact that five years is an eternity in the fast-moving arena of gay rights. Even though 61 percent of the voters approved the ballot measure, recent polls show that the electorate is now evenly split, with Democrats and independents favoring same-sex marriage and Republicans strongly opposed. The Legislature is hardly a renegade body if it roughly mirrors popular opinion.

Mr. Schwarzenegger also seems to have forgotten that this nation was founded as a republic, in which the citizens elect legislators to govern on their behalf. Such representative democracy is especially important when it comes to protecting the fundamental rights of minorities, who may face bigoted hostility from some segments of the electorate.

It’s easy to guess why Mr. Schwarzenegger was in such a hurry to announce his veto. Although he was initially hailed as a centrist Republican superhero who could appeal to a broad range of voters, his popularity has plummeted, and polls show that most Californians are inclined to oppose his re-election. Only his Republican base continues to back him.

Mr. Schwarzenegger’s own views of gay marriage are hidden beneath vague, elusive, sometimes contradictory comments that add up to ducking the issue. The former Mr. Universe who has derided political opponents as “girlie men” is afraid to say what he really thinks. He falls back on a rationale that would leave the issue to the courts or another vote of the people. Anything to get him off the hook.

Okay, I was wrong about Prop 22, apparently. It had to do with recognition of out-of-state marriages, not the legality of same-sex marriages performed in California. This makes it even clearer that Schwarzenegger punted.

E.J. Graff says that although anti-gay-marriage amendments will probably pass in all 11 states in which they’re on the ballot on Tuesday, not to worry: time is on our side.

Imagine coming upon this sentence for the first time, without having listened closely to any discussion of gay rights: “Marriage consists only of the union between one man and one woman.” Wouldn’t that strike you as a dictionary definition of marriage? That was exactly the intention of this brilliant and sneaky sentence’s framers, when the first Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), was loosed upon the nation in 1995. And it’s still the effect that the phrase has on most ordinary voters today. That particular version comes from the first sentence of the proposed Arkansas constitutional amendment; with a few tweaks, it’s what you’ll find on eleven state ballots next week. And it reads less like a ban than an affirmation, a simple declaration of fact. What voter wants to mess with Webster’s?

But, of course, Webster’s keeps issuing new editions–because words are continually changing to fit our changing lives. In the mid-nineteenth century, the comparable sentence would have been this: “Nothing is Marriage but a solemn engagement to live together in faith and love till death” (italics in the original). That was written by New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, who argued that marriage’s very definition–you could read it in the dictionary!–precluded divorce. In his mind, and in the minds of many at the time, divorce with remarriage was immoral bed-hopping, simple polygamy, since it enabled someone to have more than one living spouse at a time. The nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century public discussion over marriage’s exit rules was as heated as today’s debate over whether marriage’s entrance rules should be gender-neutral. But in that century-long debate, Americans concluded that Webster’s was wrong: The essence of marriage wasn’t in the phrase “till death,” but in the more central phrase, “a solemn engagement to live together in faith and love.” Not coincidentally, that’s also the definition under which same-sex couples belong. …

Same-sex marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, the founder and director of the national group Freedom to Marry, likes to say that about a third of the country already backs same-sex marriage and that about a third (roughly the percentage that identifies as evangelical Christian) is unalterably opposed. The remaining portion, the “movable middle,” has not thoroughly thought the issue through. Many such folks hold two opposing impulses at the same time, impulses they haven’t yet managed to reconcile. On the one hand, they have that deep American belief in the importance of equal rights for all. On the other hand, they think gay sex (and therefore gay marriage) is really, really icky. The Defense of Marriage Acts are written to appeal to one side of those conflicting beliefs, pushing the other out of the voters’ minds. And so, in most states, passing those dictionary-definition DOMA amendments takes little or no work; you just have to get one on the ballot.

Defeating a DOMA, however, requires a ferocious retail effort. It means talking, one on one, to a significant percentage of voters in a state. On the nation’s coasts and in the biggest cities, the places to which so many lesbians and gay men flee for protection and refuge, those conversations have indeed been happening. As a result, in states like Massachusetts or New Jersey, same-sex marriage has at least a plurality of supporters. But here’s where those conversations have not been happening, or at least, not in significant enough numbers: Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, or Utah. …

Over the next five, ten, and twenty years, as lesbians and gay men keep leading ordinary lives in full view, those hastily passed DOMA amendments will be peeled right back off the books, one by one. Coastal states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, California, and Washington will keep moving toward more fully recognizing a life commitment between two women or two men. Many of those now-married couples and their kids will regularly head home to the interior for Thanksgiving, Passover, Christmas, Juneteenth, birthdays, high-school reunions, and so on for years to come. Eventually, their families and friends will agree that they, too, fit marriage’s meaning and deserve the recognition of civil law.

That shift will happen faster in states where marriage equality advocates have been hunkering down and educating their fellow citizens. It will take longer in states where, instead, lesbians and gay men have simply picked up and moved away. The shift won’t happen next Tuesday. It won’t happen next Wednesday. But–unlike the Red Sox–this team won’t keep me waiting for 86 years.

Well, the Missouri Constitution now bans gay marriage.

Missourians Back Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

With 93 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment had garnered 70 percent of the vote.

Gay Marriage Ban Gets Voter OK

The Missouri Constitution will now state that “to be valid and recognized in this state a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.”

Missouri approves same-sex marriage ban

Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment September 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue November 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

Ugh.

After a month’s break, the Massachusetts legislature meets again today to consider passing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. In order to take effect, an amendment would have to be approved by the legislature again in 2006 and then by the voters in November of that year. So whatever happens today, it looks like it’s T-minus 67 days until same-sex couples in Massachusetts can get the first state-recognized same-sex marriage licenses in the nation. (Unless another state does it first…)

Two great letters on Salon.com today:

********

Having lived in the Netherlands for the past two years, I find myself continually amazed that, as a noncitizen, I have more rights as a gay man than I do in the United States of America, where I am a citizen. I can get married, I can gain residency based on that marriage, and I cannot be discriminated against in employment, housing or public accommodation based on the fact that I am gay. Many of the Dutch now take these rights for granted.

As an active voter, I have followed U.S. politics very closely while I have been here. I am perplexed by the fear that progressives express over the right-wing backlash to marriage rights for same-sex couples. The backlash would happen no matter how small the gains on same-sex marriage or any other progressive issue. The right wing and its minions have defined our debates for far too long. Now it is the progressives that are defining this issue. Is it possible that “domestic partnerships” would be considered by some conservatives to be a viable compromise if full marriage rights not been on the table as a real possibility?

It is appalling to think that those of us who have been fighting for these rights over the past decade would be intimidated into backing down now. Rather than criticize Gavin Newsom and other allies who have taken risks to advance this issue, we should lend them our full support and urge them not to back down. Same-sex marriage may be a key issue in the presidential election, but the economy, the deficit, and the motivation for the Iraq war also loom large in the minds of a majority of voters. George Bush stands to win or lose this election even if the issue of same-sex marriage evaporates into thin air. It would be pointless to back down now based on a false economy of political strategy, no matter how well intentioned. I believe that if we continue to define this debate by consistently raising the bar, then we will have the luxury of taking our rights for granted in the near future.

— Robert Earhart

While gays need to be realistic about a potential backlash on the marriage issue, I would like to see a few less nervous nellies on my side.

I remember reading that at the time of the American Revolution, only about a third of the population really favored a break from England. But that didn’t prevent the minority from pursuing the issue in the name of justice.

There is never going to be a perfect time for gays to demand marriage rights. While I agree that getting rid of the disastrous Bush regime is crucial on many levels, the right wing was going to push this issue anyway. And by taking a stand on a constitutional amendment, Bush has placed himself on the extreme, leaving the comfortable middle ground of “no gay marriage, but no constitutional amendment” all to Kerry. It’s not what I’d like Kerry to say, but it’s a winner with moderate and independent voters.

Gays used to describe themselves with the code phrase “friends of Dorothy” — a phenomenon stunningly appropriate for these days, when a little courage is in order. Like the Cowardly Lion, who was born to be a sissy, we’ll undoubtedly learn that we have a lot more courage than we ever thought.

— Bernard Gundy

********

Amen.

The March issue of the Lesbian and Gay Law Notes is up today, including a thorough update on same-sex marriage around the nation.

Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment.

Here’s the text of the speech.

I don’t have enough expletives to express how angry I am right now. I don’t have enough words to describe our idiotic, stupid, narrow-minded, intellectually bankrupt president and those who agree with him.

So I won’t. Instead I’ll link to something.

I’m almost finished reading David Moats’s new book, Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage, the story of how civil unions became law in Vermont. Towards the end of the book, Moats quotes, almost in full, a letter that appeared in a Vermont newspaper shortly after Gov. Dean signed the civil unions bill into law.

Here is the letter. Please read it. It’s wonderful.

What’s in a Word?

Really good article about same-sex marriage. The most interesting part to me:

…conservative and progressive politics are organized around two very different models of married life: a strict father family and a nurturing parent family.

I think this is a very astute explanation of why there’s so much disagreement over equal marriage rights.

A narrow-minded opinion piece appeared yesterday in the Cavalier Daily, the student newspaper of my double alma mater, the University of Virginia. I was alerted to it by UVA’s gay alumni group.

I’ve sent the Cavailer Daily the following letter in response.

To the Editor:

Jeff _______
CLAS ’95, LAW ’99

I hope they print it.

Here’s an editorial from the latest National Review in support of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban gay marriage. The editorial deserves comment.

First, I enjoy some of the rhetoric the writers use. “There is every reason to expect that liberal legal activists will sue…” Oh, those liberal legal activists, always stirring up trouble! Notice they didn’t say, “There is every reason to expect that married gay couples will sue.” Heavens, no — if they did that, readers might get the impression that this is an issue that actually affects real people.

I also like, “We would object to judges’ taking it upon themselves to impose a national regime of gay marriage.” Regime. Nice one. What comes to mind when you think of a regime these days? Dictionary.com defines the term and includes two sample phrases: a fascist regime and suffered under the new regime. Nice connotation. You’d think we were trying to force straight people into same-sex marriage, when really, people would suffer only under a regime that would ban gay marriage. I saw a line a few weeks ago: “If you’re against gay marriage, don’t have one.” Pretty simple.

The editorial says, “Gay marriage would cut the final cord that ties marriage to the well-being of children.” Except that there are gay couples who adopt and raise children and love them just as much as any other adoptive parents would love their children. And children receive just as much love and attention when raised by same-sex couples as they do when raised by different-sex couples. Many conservatives still, in 2003, are unconsciously wedded (as it were) to the idea that all gay people are irresponsible, bed-hopping, club-hopping drug users. And even if most gay couples did fit this mold (a premise I will not accept without first seeing a direct survey of all gay Americans, closeted and uncloseted, urban and rural, religious and atheist, bookish and stupid, independent-minded and herd-minded) — don’t these particular conservatives realize that any couple that wants to adopt a child must be evaluated by an adoption agency first? Or do they think Bruce and Sven are going to pop into Prada, pick up some shoes and a baby, and head out to the clubs?

The editorial states, “Our cultural forgetting of the meaning of marriage has already had too many sad consequences for children and adults.” One would therefore expect conservatives not just to accept, but to enthusiastically support gay marriage as a positive consequence for children and for the adults who raise them.

I wish people would think through things more clearly before publishing something like this.

How about the final paragraph? “But conservatives retain a healthy resistance to fiddling with our basic political document. Judges have, unfortunately, displayed no such resistance in recent decades. On an issue where the stakes could hardly be higher, they need to be resisted.” How would permitting gay marriage be “fiddling with our basic political document?” Where in the U.S. Constitution is there any statement at all about marriage?

If you’re against gay marriage, don’t have one. It’s pretty simple.