M-Day In Cali

Gay marriage is underway in California and the debate was (and still is) raging all over the 'net and radio today about the ramifications of the State Supreme Court decision last month NPR had a particularly fascinating discussion about the balance between religious liberties and basic equality in the debate. (See the whole article here.) Either way, both sides of the debate are gearing up for a fierce battle in the fall over a ballot initiative to overturn the court decision and pass a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Early word is that the voters would be more evenly divided this time around and proponents are hoping that stories such as this one will add a human dimension to the debate.

To me this debate had appeared somewhat elementary- from the point of view of basic fairness, I felt that gay marriage was warranted simply because by denying it, we are discriminating against gay couples. From a political point of view, I felt treading carefully was in order as well: civil unions are a far more achievable stepping stone to full marriage for gay couples and moreover, they're probably easier to achieve than overturning constitutional amendments. (Amendments, once passed are a pain in the ass to get rid of.) I realize that the 'civil unions first' point of view isn't necessarily a popular one, so keep in mind that I'm speaking from the point of view of good political sense only- and what's easy politically speaking is not always right or popular for that matter.

But to me, this issue has to be handled carefully. If you go back over the timeline of the 2004 election, gay marriage didn't become an issue until San Fransisco Mayor Gavin Newson started handing out marriage licenses willy-nilly. The GOP seemed willing to frown on the Massachutsetts Court decision, but Bush didn't get any political mileage out of it until Newson stared up. Conservatives today (read: my pseudo-libertarian, pro-gay marriage father) are arguing that the state supreme court decision of 2008 still ranks as judicial activism, but I'd argue the opposite.

Since 2004, we've seen the voters weigh in (they said no), we've seen the legislature and the Governor weigh in (both deferred to the State Supreme Court.) All branches of the Government and the Voters of California have weighed in. This isn't some ruling out of the blue- every branch of state government has had its say and the court has issued a ruling. Far different from runaway judicial activism that Conservatives continually decry. Besides, it's worth noting that if civil rights legislation had been left up to the states then segregation would have taken years to undo. It comes down to the old maxim: what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. And we should expect the government and our elected representatives, judges or otherwise to do what's right for the country and not just what's popular.

The issue hasn't arrived in Minnesota as of yet- and I know there was at least one marriage in Iowa before the judge issued a stay and I haven't heard anything else about a ballot initiative or even if there's going to be one (Iowa, in all fairness, having more important things to deal with right now.) but I have been called a couple of times by pollsters who asked me about the issue and whether or not I'd vote for an amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. I generally come down on the side of letting the voters speak, but I would vote no- to me this is a silly argument. Gay marriage is inevitable (generationally speaking, people under 30 are heavily in favor) and ending discrimination is always a good thing in my book.

I'm not sure how it'd play in Minnesota though. I'm not sure the DFL is eager to push the issue either as it could very easily bring out the underlying conservative streak in the state and probably lead to another constitutional amendment banning it. But that said, there's kind of an independent/progressive streak in the state that might not make that much of an issue out of it. But I doubt anyone's eager to find out- proponents might not be that eager to make Minnesota a battle ground on the issue.

But it's M-Day in Cali. Congratulations to everyone out there!