Sanity and Pwns

And Why Homophobes Should be Happy

Yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision ruling that same-sex couples had a legal right, under the California state constitution, to be married, was hailed as a monumental victory for homosexual rights. The court specifically ruled that even if the state guaranteed every single practical right to same-sex couples under the guise of “domestic partnerships”, the couple’s rights were still being infringed upon in a matter that denied them equal dignity and respect under the law.

Within hours the internet, news media, and political landscape was alive with buzz and backlash. As it stands, twenty-seven states in the union have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage within their states, effectively squelching the issue for their own courts. And here we have the left-leaning state of California accomplishing the opposite, but practically similar task of deciding upon a constitutional interpretation, in this case, in favor of the marriages. Of course, none of these situations are necessarily set in stone, but they require further amendment to the constitution to overturn those resolutions (or a reversal in the court’s decision).

This, I guess, seems bad for those who oppose gay marriage. But I believe, while obviously not a victory by any means, crafty politicians that oppose gay marriage will be less distraught over this than it would first seem. In fact, this isn’t bad for most legitimate right-leaning politicians and voters. Sure, we will hear the usual cries of activist judges, liberal courts, etc. But the one group that will make the most noise about this decision are those who care not about the legality of marriage – it will come from staunch theocrats who find their place on the outskirts of political campaigns, and on this issue, are aligned with states rights politicians as a result of coincidence rather than ideological convergence.

States rights folks, on the other hand, should maybe reconsider their inevitable whining. This is good for them. Another state has decided, without federal intervention, on a definition of marriage. And in doing so they have somewhat legitimized the idea that we can live in a country, half gay(free) and half not(gayfree). Their vision of an America where each state decide upon abortion, gay marriage, gun laws, has come one step closer to reality on at least this issue with California’s decision.

I guess they could get greedy. They could say “no” and implore the State to handle things legislatively, perhaps pushing their conception of states rights beyond their own meaning and into a real of referendum obsessed majority rule where even states constitutions are not a deciding force in resolution. But they’d be mistaken.

It is those very same constitutions that in many other states have been politicized in such a way to ban gay marriage, and indeed, this is seen as somehow being more righteous than resolution through judicial review. But they have so much more to lose than the state of California. The alternative could cripple their entire argument. Undoubtedly, if gay rights activists were denied victory in the most liberal of states, their political quest would eventually reach the top court. The way things sit now they may want to not hear the case – but as the rumbling continued to grow, over the years, they’d be left with no choice. Indeed, this is how those who wish to destroy gay marriage would finally be defeated. The high court would be faced with two equally unappealing options, if it ever came to having to make a final decision on this issue. They could side with the majority, support states who ban gay marriages and unions. They could legally justify this, despite my own opinion. But if the crowds keep growing, and the people keep speaking out, maybe they wouldn’t. Maybe they would do what was right, following their own precedent, and correctly rule on the illegality of states banning gay marriage and gay unions. Maybe they will point to their own interpretation of the fourteenth amendment in Brown v. The Board of Education, and accurately declare that sexual orientation is just as protected under the law as any other arbitrary division foolish voters may try and legally re-enforce. And if that ever comes to pass, those who seek to decide what is right and what is wrong in this society will have only their own greedy ambitions and foolish third for power to blame.

That aside, I extend congratulations and well wishes to all those soon-to-be married couples who have finally escaped unethical treatment in California.