carrassi

The big news yesterday was the California Supreme Court’s decision that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry. Reportedly thousands of gleeful couples across the state now look forward to finally taking their vows, and no doubt San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome is wearing a big, shit-eating grin, now vindicated after his bold stunt in 2004.

Amidst the new-found joy emerges reality: 1.1 million signatures have already been gathered by religious and conservative groups across the state in a presumptive (and overwhelming) attempt to qualify a constitutional amendment which would require the state to only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. This would effectively nullify the Court’s interpretation of the existing constitution, though whether or not it would retroactively apply to marriages filed from today until the measure’s passage is still being debated by legal scholars (my best guess, along with Boalt Law professor Jesse Choper, is that it won’t, if only because that decision will ultimately be left up to the same judges which handed down the ruling yesterday).

Of course, for the vast majority of this country, issues like gay marriage will completely fail to register on their radar, on rightfully so: there are, quite obviously, a lot more important things to worry about. Still, the issue will likely resonate throughout the summer and into November, not only in California, but in the national discussion because it offers conservatives the opportunity to do one of their absolute favorite things: rant with foam at the mouth about "activist judges" and the cardinal sin of "legislating from the bench." The people have spoken, they will say, and these judges have "exchanged the rule of law for the rule of unbridled power to destroy all that is good and sacred." Uh…wow.

Such rhetoric has and will likely be implemented in national discussions on Presidential appointments to the US Supreme Court. John McCain did just that only a few weeks ago, reassuring his base that if he’s elected he’ll give the wink-wink, nudge-nudge to his appointees to make sure they’re all set to send Roe v. Wade into legal oblivion. From a purely judicially philosophical perspective, I think judicial restraint wins on the merits, but agree with Scalia that its still just the "lesser of two evils." That said, I think overturning Roe would be a terrible blow for women, even if I think the legal reasoning on which it stands is rather shaky.

The future of gay marriage now rests in the hands of the voters. It will be interesting to see how the campaigns emerge and how they’ll choose to convey their message; I’m particularly curious to see how conservative groups will handle the issue without seeming entirely homophobic, or how voters will respond to coverage of what will likely be very dramatic celebrations and demonstrations by homosexuals in the months to follow, given that the majority of voters in the state still continue to be old, crotchety white folks who would likely have a coronary if they stepped foot into the Castro. As for me, I’m of the opinion that those who love one another should have every right to marry as they please: it will make me no better or worse of a husband to my future wife because of it. Homosexuality hurts no one and offends only that part of the population which holds beliefs, often religious, which forbid it, and while I do not begrudge them their beliefs, I do not believe they have any place in my government.