California Supreme Court Decides Marriage is Gay

Posted by Enrique on 05.22.2008

Last week, the Supreme Court of California struck down a gay marriage ban that had been approved by over 60% of voters. Once again, activist judges overturned the will of the people – and for once, activist judges got it right.



In an election year bombshell, true-blue California became the second U.S. state to legalize gay marriage last week. Of course, the voters didn't actually legalize it – four justices of the California Supreme Court did. In a split decision, the Cali Supremes overturned Proposition 22, a ballot initiative passed in 2000 that defined marriage as "between a man and a woman." Although California already has a liberal domestic partnership law that confers all the legal benefits of marriage on homosexuals, 61% of voters decided to pass Prop 22 in an effort to protect the word "marriage." To which the Cali Supremes said, "Suck it."

Many conservatives are using this decision as an example of the kind of judicial activism that threatens to undo our very democracy &*$#!##()$&!!!!!!1!! And while no patriotic American wants unaccountable jurists legislating from the bench, there's a fine line between overruling the will of the people and overturning an unconstitutional law – one man's "activist" is another man's "freedom fighter," as it were. In this case, I believe the Cali Supremes did the right thing by striking down Prop 22.

Oh my dear lefty readers, I just love it when we're totally on the same page. Let's enjoy skewering the religious right together, shall we?

The story so far…

You can read the Cali Supreme's decision in PDF format here. It's 172 pages, so make sure you set aside some time. I read the whole thing in less than an hour. Okay, I didn't read it closely, I mostly skimmed it. Actually, I didn't really skim it, but I read a couple of blog posts by people who claimed to have skimmed it. But you should really read the whole thing, I'm sure it's a breeze.

Even though I haven't read the decision, I still have very strong opinions about it. Never let being poorly informed stop you from taking a stand, I always say. As I understand it, the gist of the Cali Supremes is that Prop 22 violates the state constitution's equal protection clause, and is therefore invalid. In other words, they found that 61% of California's voters passed a discriminatory law. Some conservative writers/bloggers are complaining that the Cali Supremes were arrogant in imposing their values on the citizens of the Golden State. But what were the Cali Supremes supposed to do when faced with a law that is clearly discriminatory?

A lot of religious conservatives play this cute game where they claim to be in favor of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" for homosexuals, but not "marriage." These conservatives don't even mind if such civil unions are legally indistinguishable from marriage; they just want to exclusive ownership of the word "marriage." And then they have the nerve to get all indignant when lefties call them homophobic.

So why not call it "marriage" instead of a "civil union?" The clear implication is that a "civil union" is less legitimate than a "marriage." Defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" is plainly an attempt to discriminate against homosexuals – it could have no other purpose. Religious conservatives are certainly entitled to believe that homosexuals are disreputable, but the law shouldn't be a vehicle for anti-gay prejudice, no matter how many people voted for it. Attention religious conservatives – It's 2008 already, and the rest of adult America is getting a little damn tired of your smug contempt for homosexuals. Most of us have known a gay person or two in our lives, and they seem perfectly ordinary. In my experience, gay men are usually easy to keep entertained, even if they're occasionally irritating and have lousy taste in music. But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with them, and there's no reason to pretend there is. Grow up.



HOLY SHIT! You just looked at a picture of two dudes kissing! You're queer! That's right, you're gay just for seeing it. And that one dude's mouth is kind of open. Did you notice that? God, you're such a faggot. You're not at work, are you? Your boss is probably standing behind you right now. Sure, just try and explain why you're looking at a couple of guys playing tonsil hockey on company time. Oh yeah, that's your ass.

It's probably unfair for me to portray conservatives opposed to gay marriage as religious nuts and/or bigots. But really – what other motive could one possibly have for being opposed to gay marriage? For an example, let's look at this column by talk radio host Dennis Prager:

Another reason for this decision [to overturn Prop 22] is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex…

Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion -- or to any past wisdom -- for one's values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America's values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn't they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.

First of all, I had no idea I was a secular lefty. I always figured that my love of small government and free markets made me right-of-center, but apparently conservatism is defined by treating homosexuals as second class citizens these days. Lame. Secondly, I'm perfectly fine with NOT looking to religion for answers. Organized religion has provided many beautiful things for mankind, but it's also given us honor killings and suicide bombers. God's judgment has proven far too unreliable in the past; no reason to start listening to Him now. Besides, it really irritates me that He never bothers to clarify these kinds of things.

Finally, even if you sincerely believe that homosexuals are immoral, or bad examples, or whatever – gay marriage has no affect whatsoever on your marriage or your children. If you think that homosexual "marriage" is somehow going to make it more difficult to raise your kids, you are sorely and pathetically mistaken. It's not even any of your damn business. Please stop embarrassing regular conservatives with your silly superstitious prejudice. Frankly, if God really cares that much about what we do with our naughty bits, then He's a petty little shit. I'd sooner put my faith in Barack Obama.

Speaking of which, it is an election year, and the Cali Supremes inconveniently put gay marriage in the spotlight. Both Obama and John McCain's campaigns issued statements about the overturn of Prop 22. Obama said that he respects the decision of Cali Supremes, and that he will continue to fight for "civil unions" as POTUS. In other words, Obama had the opportunity to affirm gay "marriage," but pussed out in favor of political expediency. Sen. Same Old Shit, indeed.

However, on this issue, Obama isn't nearly as craven as McCain. Since McCain is kind of a lefty himself, he has to do everything in his power to show the GOP base that he's got their back.


"John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."

That's not very maverick-y, is it? In fairness, McCain has been a consistent opponent of gay marriage throughout his career, although he never makes a big deal out of it unless it's convenient. But it's pretty cheap for McCain to play the "activist judges" card. No one minds activist judges who agree with them. As Jacob Sullum of reason magazine points out, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Washington D.C.'s gun ban, McCain probably won't be complaining about activist judges. Sometimes activist judges get it right.

Anyway, congratulations to all my homosexual California readers on their impending nuptials. As the saying goes – now you get to be miserable like everyone else. I guess we'll have to stop calling you gay.