After Some Thought on Proposition 8

It must seem unfathomable that a writer who would be directly impacted by Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling on Proposition 8 in California would wait an entire month to put his thoughts down about the event.  Perhaps as it is with the gravity of the ruling itself, the weight of my thoughts required a thoughtful approach to this concern.

On August 4, 2010, Judge Walker ruled in the California's Third District Court of Appeals that there was no reason to allow Proposition 8, the California law that prohibits consenting, unrelated people over the age of majority, gay folk in particular, to stand.  The ruling effectively permits all eligible people to marry regardless of their genders.  Although the door appeared to be flung wide open, Judge Walker wisely approved a stay of his decision awaiting a decision by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown whether they would appeal the decision in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.  When the word was released that neither State official was willing to make that appeal, the defendent-intervenors such as the Pacific Justice Institute approached the Ninth Circuit to request permission to appeal on their own, which is currently awaiting a hearing, most likely transpiring in November 2010.

In November, most likely after the election, a decision will be made whether the defendent-intervenors can appeal.  If they cannot, then it is clear they will attempt to take the case to the United States Supreme Court.  If the Justices determine that the case will not be heard before them, then Judge Walker's final decision will stand. 

Between the cases in Massachusetts regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Proposition 8 case in California, the country is facing what it believes to be a cultural shift of monumental proportions.  It cannot be understated that when we define marriage as a legal contract between two people regardless of gender, it is a significant change in perception.  The irony, of course, is that we are behind the rest of the world in this process.  As Americans, we are once again under the misapprehension that until we make a decision like this, it hasn't really happened.  Our arrogance is unmatched around the globe.  The Netherlands has had marriage equality since 2000.  We are not breaking new ground.

Why is it that countries as diverse as The Netherlands, South Africa, Iceland, and Argentina, have found their way to recognize full marriage rights for all their citizens and the United States is still behaving as though we are trying to take something away from a specific segment of the population by providing rights to all citizens?  Could it be our Puritan background?  Not likely since the Puritans were so revolutionary as to believe they had such an innate freedom of religion that they moved across the Atlantic Ocean to build a society in which their personal freedoms were recognized.  This was during the 16th and 17th centuries.  Now, of course, we have other groups asking for the same freedoms and recognition of their belief systems, and our "as it's always been done" powerbase is attempting to deny those freedoms.

The tide is changing.  During the 1960s, when President Lyndon B. Johnson prepared to sign the Civil Rights Act, people began separating themselves from the discriminatory stance they had held for so long because they didn't want to be part of the losing team, members of which included the Ku Klux Klan.  Today, centrist Republicans are beginning to choose equality instead of discrimination.  Slowly, people are recognizing they will be the losers in a battle of wisdom and awakening.  That's not a good place to find oneself, especially if one is facing an upcoming election.

At a personal level, I know that in 100 years, equality in marriage will be as accepted by the majority as equal right for the races is today.  Our great-great-grandchildren will wonder what the fuss was all about.  Grandpa Tom and his husband, Papa Cal, are like a lot of other people's grandparents.  The economy will flourish with extravagent weddings between homoamorous people.  They will no longer be called gay weddings, they'll just be weddings.  Forms will say, "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2."  In 100 years, we will have settled into our comfort zone about equality, and there will be less room for discrimination against any other people.  Perhaps it is my American idealism that leads me to believe in these joyful dreams.  If history is any indicator, we will find someone else against whom to focus our disgust and animosity; however, I hope not. 
______________________

References:

Advocate.com (2010) [Marriage rings and map of Argentina] Retrieved from http://www.advocate.com/uploadedImages/ARGENTINA_MARRIAGEX390.jpg.

Hoan, Tony (2009) [Defend Equality, Love Unites]. My portfolio.usc.edu. Graphic art. Retrieved from http://myportfolio.usc.edu/tonyhoan/6a00d8341c730253ef010535ee7bfe970b-640wi.jpg.

LaVictoire, Bridgette P. (2010, September 9) "California governor and attorney general not required to appeal Walker ruling."  Lezgetreal.com. Retrieved from http://lezgetreal.com/2010/09/californias-governor-and-attorney-general-not-requires-to-appeal-walker-ruling/.

Mintz, Howard (2010) "Federal judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage."  San Jose Mercury News, MercuryNews.com.  Retrieved on September 5, 2010 from  http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15677407?nclick_check=1.

Rinaldi, Richard (2005) [William and Roy]. http://www.renaldi.com/. Gay and Lesbian Elderly. Photograph, Black & White.  Retrieved from  http://www.renaldi.com/portfolio/williamandroy.jpg on September 5, 2010.