Keeping Track of Same Sex Marriage

by Patrick Connors / September 10th, 2007

Here is the latest development in California regarding same sex marriage: “For the second time in three years, the Legislature has approved a bill to give same-sex couples the right to marry in California…” according to the San Francisco Chronicle (“Legislature OKs same-sex marriage bill; governor expected to veto” by Haley Davies, Saturday, September 8, 2007).

I’d like to ask a question that pertains to the campaign platforms of the Democratic party candidates for President. Is this development in CA an example of the states taking care of the issue of same sex marriage? The California State Legislature is made up of two political bodies: the assembly and the senate. Both of these bodies are comprised of politicians that were elected by the citizens of California. Both of these bodies passed a bill — for the second time — that gives same sex couples the right to marriage. This legislation would undo the legislation passed in 2000 (Prop 22) that defined marriage in a way that prohibits LGBT (lesbian-gay-bi-transgender) people from being married.

Does the action of the legislature (elected by the people) represent the will of the voters or does Proposition 22 represent the will of the voters?

I think this situation is more complicated than candidates for president of the US are acknowledging. Frankly, it gets even worse the more I think about it.

Do we really want Governor Schwarzenegger to sign the bill? Of course we do. I think. What would that do to the SSM case that is before the state Supreme Court? I guess it would make it unnecessary because the people suing for marriage will no longer have a complaint.

Of course, if the governor signed the bill, the two fanatical Christian organizations that are gathering signatures to amend the state constitution against same sex marriage (and possibly all forms of relationship recognition) would be further motivated to their cause. They could really break out the fire and brimstone to push for an amendment if the governor signed. If they succeed, then the law won’t matter and the dropped lawsuits will matter even less (does that makes sense?).

But then again, even if Schwarzenegger doesn’t sign the bill the Zealots for Christ will still push to amend the constitution. They won’t rest until their religious beliefs are imposed on all Californians. So, if the bill is vetoed, the state Supreme Court will still have to decide the case and the constitution could still be amended.

Are you keeping up with me?

Now, in New York State the court said that the Legislature must act if it chooses to — it is not up to the court — to create SSM or something else, since NY State has nothing at all in place to accommodate same sex couples (even though there is nothing on the books that specifically denies it either). In New Jersey, the court forced the Legislature to act within a certain time frame. They passed Civil Union legislation and Governor signed it into law.

Listen up, Arnold: the Governor of New Jersey signed the bill. The Governor of New York submitted same sex marriage legislation to the Legislature himself and is waiting to sign it. What is your story? Oh, that’s right… you are waiting for the court case to be heard to determine whether or not LGBT Californians are due full citizenship.

This is what kills me. Isn’t anyone bothered by this shell game? I know there are extremely polarized opinions about marriage equality. I also know there is enormous ambivalence about it too — among heteros as well as homos. Don’t any of the ambivalent people feel a pang of discomfort about this process?

The people opposed to equality are engaged in rigorous legal acrobatics and will contort their agenda as much as necessary to achieve their goal. What is their goal? They seek to marginalize a minority group that they despise. They want to circumvent all methods of redress available to LGBT citizens. They do not want to let go of their privileged status and they will work feverishly to deny equality to people for whom they have contempt.

The politicians that dodge the issue or offer the platitude “let the states decide” are accomplices to the bigotry… so are the people that don’t push political leaders to take a principled stand in support of equality and fairness.

If it’s ok for the states to decide this issue, then tell me: Was this issue resolved by the voters of California in 2000, or was it decided by the voters of California when they elected and re-elected their state representatives?

Also, please tell me why it is acceptable to jerk around a minority group that is not guilty of any crime and only seeks to have the same consideration of citizenship that an imprisoned serial killer has? Charles Manson can get married without having to put up with religious fanaticism, political opportunism or feckless friends getting in his way.

Why is anyone ambivalent about the gratuitous and desperate attempts that are being made to find a way to legalize bigotry?

Patrick Connors is a 41-year-old student at San Francisco State University in pursuit of a BA. He and his husband were married at San Francisco City Hall in 2004. The State of California annulled their marriage license 6 months later, something he has resented ever since. Read other articles by Patrick, or visit Patrick's website.

This article was posted on Monday, September 10th, 2007 at 5:00am and is filed under Civil Liberties, Prejudice.

11 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. On Lawn said on September 10th, 2007 at 6:40am #

    This legislation would undo the legislation passed in 2000 (Prop 22) that defined marriage in a way that prohibits LGBT (lesbian-gay-bi-transgender) people from being married. […] Does the action of the legislature (elected by the people) represent the will of the voters or does Proposition 22 represent the will of the voters?

    The answer to that is pretty clear in the California constitution that Prop 22 is the voice of the people and it will take another popular referendum to vote it away. So clear that even a pro-neutered-marriage commentator at Find Law agreed.

    Why is anyone ambivalent about the gratuitous and desperate attempts that are being made to find a way to legalize bigotry?

    First and foremost, I agree. However I don’t think your bigotry sensors are firing correctly.

    Think about it, there is a group of people who claim that they are different from the rest of society. This inherent difference means they cannot meaningfully be expected to integrate into the same institution with people of a different class. Sound familiar? But this isn’t the 1950’s that I’m talking about, its the enlightened 2000’s. And the group of people are by nature segregationists over gender so much that they call themselves “homosexuals”.

    They say that:
    1) An exception to the rule should be made to the oldest institution of integration we have so they can practice their segregationist philosophies as a household.

    2) Equality is not measured by equal gender representation, but by creating a new classification for their orientation (read bias or prejudice) and then integrating them into the institution.

    3) People who still hold to the values of integration in marriage are bigots.

    4) That mentioning how one-man and one-woman make a complete and procreative unit is the equivalent of white supremacy. And the state is required to turn procreation from a marriage institution into a commercial enterprise where babies are commissioned from a catalog, purchasing the uniqueness of the other gender.

    I realize that this is strongly worded, and I do not mean to offend even though I cringe at how you have mislabeled people who value an institution devoted to preserving in-tact family ties. Think about that last point in particular as it shows how the integration being proposed is like share-cropping was integration. And how the other parent is payed off not as much to have the baby but to remain anonymous to the child for the rest of its life.

    Where is my Christ zealot arguments? You tell me. Much of the value of the ancient moralists that are still quoted today gets marred when people decide to go on their own crusade, consider the statue of Buddha that was blown up by the Taliban. But the fallacy of neutered marriage is on the face of it, using the same generally respected principles of humanity that very few deny today.

  2. John K. said on September 10th, 2007 at 9:36am #

    Great piece. I find it unbearably ironic that all we hear about from the right are “activist judges” and the violation of the separation of powers that occurs when judges strike down gay marriage bans, and then the legislature in California passes and law and the brilliant governor’s argument is “the courts, not the legislature, should decide this issue.” It makes me want to throw up.

  3. Michael said on September 10th, 2007 at 10:29am #

    I agree that it is time for Arnold to sign-the-Bill. As noted, other Govenors are Governing in a progressive manner; It’s now your turn Mr. Governor! Good Luck to all GLBT’s who have civillywed and had their marriages annulled and to all who wish to marry in the future.

  4. Daniel said on September 10th, 2007 at 10:48am #

    Mr. Connors makes some excellent points, but the political reality works against public support for ssm. Politicians know the religious conservatives are excellent at turning out the vote for specific issues (prop 22, the 2004 election, etc). Timing will be everything. We need to make sure we elect more pro-gay marriage members to the state legislatures in the “off years” (i.e. non-presidential election years). Trying to force things through during a presidential election year will be much more difficult and could result in significant setbacks (i.e. the ssm amendments passed by states in 2004). As far as CA goes, we’ll probably have to wait for a new governor, or add enough new members to the legislature to override a veto. Eventually it will happen- whether by court decision, legislative action, or both- but it will take time. It must be frustrating to the younger generation who has grown up in a much more accepting atmosphere. But us “old-times” are able to appreciate just how far we’ve come, while still holding out hope that we may one day see marriage equality in our lifetime. I’ve been married for 20 years; I hope to make it official some day soon.

  5. Cristal Lowe said on September 10th, 2007 at 12:38pm #

    I think that same sex amrriage should be legal. To me I think that if you love some one you should be able to marry that person weither it be female or male. Love is something that can and is shared with two people. I say if you love your husband, or wife then forget about what people say your in love and that is all that matters.

    Cristal Lowe

  6. Gary Paul Gilbert said on September 10th, 2007 at 1:13pm #

    I completely agree with Patrick Connors. The Governor of California’s position is bizarre. As Patrick points out, the Court of Appeals in New York State, in Hernandez v. Robles, on July 6, 2006, said that it is up to the legislature to rectify the situation of unequal rights for same-sex couples. They failed to point out that the New York State legislature generally does nothing. I won’t go into the silliness of the argument, such as Justice George Bundy Smith’s saying that because opposite-sex couples can procreate accidentally they are the ones who should be allowed the option of marriage. The traditional right-wing argument has been to say it is the legislature’s job to open marriage to all couples regardless of gender–or worse provide the unequal institutions of a civil union or a domestic partnership.

    Patrick is right to point out the shell game of looking for whatever excuse one can find to deny people their rights. My only addition would be that gay prisoners too suffer, at least in New York State, from not being allowed extended family visitation with their partners. The only possible way out of that mess is if they have a legal marriage from another jurisdiction such as Canada. California at least allows partners of California domestic partnerships to do extended visits with their partners in prison. Gay prisoners cannot easily go up to Canada to marry their partners. New York State generally recognizes Canadian marriage licenses of same-sex couples.

    Enough of this shell game!

    My heart goes out to Patrick for having his marriage invalidated in California!

    Gary Paul Gilbert, Empire State Pride Marriage Ambassador, yesterday was the second anniversary of my marriage to my husband John Murdoch Matthew. We married in Montréal. We also California domestic partnership, which we filed in the mail.

  7. GregV said on September 10th, 2007 at 5:10pm #

    On Lawn said:

    [i]Think about it, there is a group of people who claim that they are different from the rest of society. This inherent difference means they cannot meaningfully be expected to integrate into the same institution with people of a different class. Sound familiar? But this isn’t the 1950’s that I’m talking about, its the enlightened 2000’s. And the group of people are by nature segregationists over gender so much that they call themselves “homosexuals”. [/i]

    I thought I saw where you were going with the above paragraph until your last word “homosexuals.” To demand that people be of particular sexes to be married is parallel to demanding that they be of particular races. In reality, the couples who make up society are composed of different combinations of sexes, races, religions, heights and weights, etc, etc, and the law should not have any regard for such traits.
    That group which claims to be “different” from others are the racists and sexists who devalue marriages which are composed of people of other sex or race combinations. My marriage should not be treated by the government any differently than yours else’s.

    S/he continues:

    [i]They say that:
    1) An exception to the rule should be made to the oldest institution of integration we have so they can practice their segregationist philosophies as a household.[/i]

    On the contrary, supporters of marriage equality seek for the present “exception” based on sex to be eliminated. It is not “segregationist” to accept both opposite-sex and same-sex marriages any more than it is “segregationist” to accept married couples of same or different races. There are all kinds of couples in society and to accept them all as equals under the law is consiustent with the whole meaning of integration.

    The post continues:
    [i]2) Equality is not measured by equal gender representation, but by creating a new classification for their orientation…[/i]

    No one should require that anyone else’s marriage have “equal gender representation” or “equal racial representation.” The people in a couple are who they are. The sexual orientation of the couple is no business of anyone elses, including the government.

    S/he continues:
    [i]3) People who still hold to the values of integration in marriage are bigots.[/i]

    If you wish to “integrate” your marriage by either race or sex, you are free to do so. It is only those who insist that OTHER people’s marriages must be either “integrated” OR “segregated” according to sex or race who are acting upon bigotry.

    Continued:
    [i]”4) That mentioning how one-man and one-woman make a complete and procreative unit….” [/i]

    No couple need make up a “procreative unit” in order to be married. Post-menopausal women and men with vasectomies get married all the time.

    Continued:
    [i]I realize that this is strongly worded, and I do not mean to offend even though I cringe at how you have mislabeled people who value an institution devoted to preserving in-tact family ties. [/i]

    The family ties of a great many same-sex couples I know are very much intact, and their marriages only symbolize their commitment to those family ties.

  8. On Lawn said on September 11th, 2007 at 8:51pm #

    GregV,

    The most salient point, is that the Constitution of California makes this provision unconstitutional.

    Everything else is moot in this exercise.

    But you raise some interesting points.

    To demand that people be of particular sexes to be married is parallel to demanding that they be of particular races.

    Howso? They are both demands, but I’m not sure what you are driving at.

    I don’t know how much of what we decide about marriage is along the lines of the humanitarian concerns of integration. But, when we speak of equality, the all-male or all-female marriage is about as equal as the all-white or all-black school. In some ways, much less so.

    On the contrary, supporters of marriage equality seek for the present “exception” based on sex to be eliminated.

    Hence why it is neutered marriage they seek. It makes little sense to say that a man and woman make a “same-sex marriage”. You make a very distinct point that you are simply wishing to remove the gender from the marriage definition — hence neutered marriage.

    But man and woman means something more than just gender integration, right?

    It is not “segregationist” to accept both opposite-sex and same-sex marriages

    This point is actually much simpler, and one I don’t want you to miss.
    Which of the following are segregationist combinations…

    a) All male
    b) All Female
    c) One male and one female

    As they say, one of these is not like the others.

    So was it wrong to say that the same sex couple wishes “practice their segregationist philosophies as a household” — as a marriage?

    No one should require that anyone else’s marriage have “equal gender representation” or “equal racial representation.”

    Forced equal gender representation would require marriages of many, many people. Forcing people to mix heritages is a classic recipe for cultural genocide. The fallacy of the latter does not carry over to the former, you have nothing more or less than a false dilemma. Race and gender are not the same thing, the product of mixing genders is still two genders. A child of a mixed race is mixed race (which is neither good nor bad, but not the same result as the gender example, hence not perfectly analogous).

    It is only those who insist that OTHER people’s marriages must be either “integrated” OR “segregated” according to sex or race who are acting upon bigotry.

    Again, integration and segregation are complete opposites. As examples of bigotry, I wish you to provide examples where integration was bigoted. The integrated schools, the integrated golf-clubs, the co-ed schools, woman’s suffrage? If these examples are not bigoted, then you have much more to do than make a simple assertion that those that expect equal gender representation in marriage are bigoted.

    No couple need make up a “procreative unit” in order to be married.

    Then what, I prey you tell me, has marriage had the reference to one man and one woman for? What exactly does the gender reference point to?

    Tell me, is that simply because they wish to oppress homosexuals? Classic examples of the Shinto, Greeks, Romans, Javanese, etc… and many other societies that at one time or another actually held homosexuality in social esteem equal or greater to marriage, they were just conspiring against homosexuals also?

    The family ties of a great many same-sex couples I know are very much intact, and their marriages only symbolize their commitment to those family ties.

    What does the term “in-tact family tie” mean to you? What do you think I mean by it?

  9. Patrick said on September 11th, 2007 at 9:39pm #

    Discussing marriage equality by referencing integration is a stellar way to confuse the issue. It is twisted and makes no sense whatsoever. Bravo!

    We all know that segregation is a policy that forces separation. There is no forced separation involved in same sex marriage. Same sex marriage does not prevent different sex marriage. Marriage itself is a voluntary institution – as is divorce and procreation.

    Christian fascists (and their sycophants) created exceptions to rules that already existed through laws like Prop 22 and various DoMAs. These actions attempt to cut LGBT people out of their right to full citizenship. “The people” also voted at various times to include due process provisions and equal protections – as well as fair faith and credit extensions – in state and federal Constitutions. Should the new bigoted laws and amendments trump as many as 3 parts of constitutions? Is it more important to toss our principle of fairness and equality aside because of fear and ignorance than it is important to find a way to treat all citizens fairly? I don’t think so.

    Ignorance and bigotry allowed people to push legislation and amendments without regard for the effect those actions would have on innocent people. They acted and continue to act out of an undeniable sense of bigotry.

    According to Dictionary.com, a bigot is “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

    I think that definition applies to people, not unlike you, that feel they must create convoluted excuses to defend their sense of superiority because they are afraid to change and are ill informed.

  10. On Lawn said on September 12th, 2007 at 7:40pm #

    It is twisted and makes no sense whatsoever. Bravo!

    It doesn’t come to the conclusion you claim, no.

    Sometimes people have a conclusion, and then try to fit the data to it. When it doesn’t fit their conclusion, it makes no sense to them.

    We all know that segregation is a policy that forces separation.

    Tell that to Rosie McDonnell’s child who’s want for a father was met with the prejudice of the mother, saying to the effect: I’m the type of Mommy who wants another mommy.

    Some of segregation’s worst harm is when it is very voluntary — voluntary in the minds of those segregating themselves. Especially in the establishment of a household it degrades others.

    But this is only a secondary point, because freedom of association means that we don’t force integration on who people share households with. Pointing out the segregation only highlights the discontinuity of the call of people who claim to be acting in the name of equality. Those that are trying to claim the integration is the new segregation, and call it bigoted as Greg did above.

    I actually support extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples, and in a much more inclusive manner than they themselves propose. But to say that marriage’s integration is simply out to get them is just insanity, and produces the tortured rhetoric that segregation is the new integration, homosexuals (all one gender) are the new blacks who were subjected by those who wished to establish a state supported homogeneous-race.

    Christian fascists (and their sycophants) created exceptions to rules that already existed through laws like Prop 22 and various DoMAs.

    Christ told the religious leaders of the day that they needed to first cleanse the inner vessel, pluck the beam from their own eyes. I think that is valuable advice for everyone today.

    You’ll have to explain what you mean by exceptions to Prop 22 and DOMA. I didn’t follow that part.

    These actions attempt to cut LGBT people out of their right to full citizenship.

    This is more tortured rhetoric, as if the inability to marry a supermodel (the person of my choice, if I didn’t already meet my wife 🙂 made me a second class citizen to the person who did marry her.

    Should the new bigoted laws and amendments trump as many as 3 parts of constitutions?

    How does equal gender representation in marriage violate due process?

    How does equal gender representation in marriage violate equal protection?

    And you need to do more research in the establishment of full faith and credit.

    Ignorance and bigotry allowed people to push legislation and amendments without regard for the effect those actions would have on innocent people.

    I mentioned earlier that I support extending benefits to same-sex couples. Lets look at the claims of equality you claim by looking at the equality of Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, do they treat all people fairly?

    1) Are they inclusive? No, they are not even inclusive to all same-sex couples which can include a mother-daughter pair who are committed to helping each other raise the daughter’s child. They are not inclusive to two sisters, or even just two roommates.

    2) Do they keep the government out of the bedroom? No, as many Domestic Partner programs require an affidavit of sexual relations.

    3) Do they have full faith and credit? No, as states need to explicitely state they will accept other CU’s or DP’s or not, or whether CU’s can map to DP’s.

    Just think of all the innocent people being harmed by these programs, the ones that were set up in the name of equality…

    Riding along the segregationist claim against homosexuality is noting when they say “all people”, to mean “homosexuals”. “They acted and continue to act out of an undeniable sense of bigotry.” As in: “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” For example calling them Christian fascists, as an exercise in dismissing the legitimate and humanitarian concerns that marriage is meant to address.

  11. GregV said on November 22nd, 2007 at 6:32pm #

    OnLawn,
    You don`t seem to know what the word segregationist means.

    I have over the years dated women and men who were black, white, brown and Asian, Catholic, Baptist, atheist, Jewish, Buddhist, and you name it. I also support others` right to date or to marry the person of their choice, and their race or sex or height or weight are none of my business.
    The one I fell in love with happens to be of the same sex and height that I am and also happens to be of a different race, religious and lingusistic background.

    If you happen to be married to someone of the SAME race, that does not make you a segregationist or in a `segregationist marriage.` If you happen to be married to someone of the same religion or the same sex that does not make you a `segregationist.`

    If you walk into a restaurant with a friend who just happens to be of the same race or sex as you, that does not mean that you support segregation or that you have a `segregationist friendship.`

    When my husband and I have dinner with the coukle next door who are the same race, we are not having dinner with `segregationists` simply because they happen to be of the same race.

    Segregationism is a belief that the `other` must be kept separate, for example in sex segregated beaches in Saudi Arabia or race segregated beaches in the old South. I support the right of anyone to date or marry or swim with or eat with others without any regard whatsoever to their race or sex.