With mind-numbing speed, and against the predictions of critics, the confluence of two events will change the landscape for gays and Lesbians forever and end the legal fight over the right to same-sex marriage.
First, the decision by the California Supreme Court that denial of marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional has resulted in California announcing that marriage licenses will be issued as of June 17th.
New York will now close the loop, with Gov. David Paterson directing state agencies to revise their regulations to acknowledge same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, as posted by Gideon from this New York Times article.
That’s the end of the game. Now that the bookends will either perform the marriage or recognize it as such, resistance in the middle is meaningless. It’s untenable to have a country where marriage is available and recognized by some states and not others. With resistance futile, it no longer matters what legislators in hick states think. It’s a done deal. The only thing left to be proven is which states are so ridiculously out of touch that they will continue to fight the tide and reduce themselves to America’s latest joke.
Now that this chapter in history has come to an end, let’s realize its significance. First, gay and Lesbian couples will no longer be able to hide behind discrimination to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions and inactions. Either get married or not, but if you do not chose to marry, then don’t expect a separate set of rights from everyone else to compensate. If you marry, it will encompass the full panoply of rights and responsibilities. If you don’t, then don’t expect special treatment.
This point was made by a post by Eugene Volokh challenging his readers to consider the conflict between two conservative positions. On the one hand, conservatives favor marriage as means of providing stability to the family unit. On the other, conservatives are against same-sex marriage because . . . they just are. Gene asks, “who wins?”
Mike at Crime & Federalism, who apparently is a closet Volokh Conspiracy fan, posts a screed against the overtly bigoted views of many who responded to Gene’s question. Mike points to this comment, ripping the bigots for their true feelings, that they lack any rational basis to challenge gay marriage. They just hate gays. Some do so in the name of Jesus, blanketing their hatred (of the act, not the person, they say) in the warmth of religion. But it’s just good old American irrational prejudice.
There will no doubt be debates in the future, as there has in the past, about the impact of same-sex couples on raising children. Of course, all heterosexual couples do a great job of it, and single parents are having a ball dealing with the tribulations of kids. There will be the ordinary challenges of love and subsequent unlove, with divorce rates being scrutinized to prove some point. And so there should be, just as there should be of
The question to those antagonistic heterosexuals (or those fearing latent homosexual tendencies) as to why they should treat gays and Lesbians with respect is of little consequence. Who cares what you think about the sexual preferences of others? They’re queer. They’re here. They’re going to get married. Get over it.
There are so many problems our society has to deal with that are of true meaning and consequence. Recognition of same-sex marriage is now off the table. If you need to find something to hate to make yourself feel special, focus on injustice. It’s not going away anytime soon.
As for those who will avail themselves of same-sex marriage, congratulations and welcome to the ordinary world of fun and games, pain and aggravation. Your wish has come true. Be careful.
For those readers who prefer to read my posts in their original French, please see Du mariage homosexuel en Amérique at Rubin Sfadj. I sound so much better in French.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott, now that this nonsense has been settled, I hope we can move to the next step and allow same sex adoptions nationally.
Years ago when Rosie O’Donnell was facing challenges in Florida I was listening to a popular talk show. A young man who spent his entire childhood years in an orphanage and was now a parent said, ‘to all you soccer moms and dads who oppose gay couple adoption..you haven’t lived your childhood wishing there was someone who planned you birthday parties, knew your favorite color, kissed your skinned knees, tucked you in at night and proudly took pictures of you and your date on prom night. I would have given my left arm to have two people who loved me do this and I would not have cared if they were a man and a woman, two men, two women, or two oranguatans. If you haven’t lived your childhood unloved by anyone you have no say.”
I never forgot it. Let’s hope others try to understand this.
Hopefully, this will happen. Once of the “trends” by many same-sex couples (as well a cosmo single women) is the need to have “their own” babies versus adoption. This isn’t a universal truth, but there is too much of it going around. With so many children in need of families and love, it’s a shame that adoption is rejected by so many. I too hope that restrictions are lifted and that adoption is seen as a primary route to a family rather than the choice of last resort.
I wish I could be optimistic about all this being over, but I fear massive reaction coming in NYS and throughout the land, making things a lot uglier before reason prevails. Faith-based and fear-based bias does not go quietly into the night.
I’m sure there will be plenty of sabre rattling, but once the first marriage is performed, the first marriage recognized in New York, it’s done.
As for our thoughtful and bold Legislature, this is the best thing that could have happened. Now they can avoid any “cutting edge” legislation and simply let the tide wash them ashore. It’s not their fault, but that evil governor, who forced their hand. What else can they do?
Thanks for the link, LOL.
I hope you didn’t mind my translating your post. I thought the French could use a little US insight on an issue they’re still struggling with after a much debated civil union law ten years ago.
Don’t be silly. I was thrilled to be translated into French. It makes me sound far better than I deserve.
Do you speak French yourself?
Me? I barely speak English. But my son is quite good at it, and promises to teach me so I can order dinner when I retire to Aix-en-Provence.
I studied in Aix for six years before moving to NY. It’s a great place to live indeed. Very small-townish, though.
Paris is just a train ride away. I loved Aix and the fields around it. I’ve done my time in the city, and would be very happy in a small town with a crusty baguette, runny cheese and a decent table wine. And a local Healey mechanic.
Should the Constitution Enshrine Prejudice?
After the Supreme Court of California held that the refusal to marry same-sex couples was unconstitutional, the saviors of marriage mobilized to stop the end of life as we know it, and California’s Proposition 8 made its way onto the ballot.
Prop 8, entitled the
Should the Constitution Enshrine Prejudice?
After the Supreme Court of California held that the refusal to marry same-sex couples was unconstitutional, the saviors of marriage mobilized to stop the end of life as we know it, and California’s Proposition 8 made its way onto the ballot.
Prop 8, entitled the
Should the Constitution Enshrine Prejudice? (Update)
After the Supreme Court of California held that the refusal to marry same-sex couples was unconstitutional, the saviors of marriage mobilized to stop the end of life as we know it, and California’s Proposition 8 made its way onto the ballot.
Prop 8, entitled the
The Risky Number 5
When New York Governor David Paterson threw caution to the wind by his vigorous support of legislative approval of same-sex marriage, it caused a