Should a gay judge rule on gay marriage?

Perry vs. Schwarzenegger was the recent California Supreme Court case to decide the constitutionality of the hotly debated "Proposition 8" - a piece of legislation outlawing gay marriage in the state.

After days of heated argument, ruling Judge Vaughn Walker decided that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overturned the law - allowing gay marriage once again.

Or, at least, he did in theory - because opponents of gay marriage filed for appeal, which is still waiting to be heard, and until that's decided the issue is still up in the air.

Complicating the fact is Judge Walker's recent admission of something people have suspected for some time - that he, himself, is gay. He announced that he had been in a happy, committed, same-sex relationship for the past ten years.

Unsurprisingly, opponents of gay marriage have leaped on this as proof that Walker's ruling was biased and self-serving.

"Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case," lawyers supporting Proposition 8 argued.

At first glance, this seems to be a valid argument - how can somebody truly issue an impartial ruling if they themselves are directly affected by it? Perhaps Judge Walker should have removed himself from the case due to a "conflict of interest."

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this was a fairly short-sighted attitude to take. After all, does that logic mean an African-American judge isn't qualified to give a ruling in a case involving civil rights? Or a female judge is unqualified to issue judgment in a case involving alleged sexual discrimination?

You could even argue that if Judge Walker was inherently biased in support of same-sex marriage because he was gay, that would mean a straight judge would be inherently against the notion of gay marriage. It seems the underlying logic behind such thinking is that no judgement is legally sound unless it's issued by a white, male, heterosexual judge - which is kind of backward thinking whichever way you cut it.

What do you think about the issue. Should Judge Walker have excused himself and let a straight judge make the ruling? Does his admission help or hinder opponents of same-sex marriage?

No Aloha to Civil Unions

Yesterday, Hawaii's Republican Governor Linda Lingle cast a veto on legislation that would have brought same-sex Civil Unions to Hawaii - to loud and raucous cheers from mean-spirited conservatives.

Readers of this blog will know where I stand on the issue of same-sex marriage - but I've at least grown to understand the 'thought process' behind conservative Christians being opposed to gay 'marriage' as an institution.

It's a ridiculous argument, of course - based on a flawed and inaccurate concept of 'traditional marriage' and the defense of 'religious freedoms' that aren't essentially any different to the 'religious freedoms' segregationists fought for in the 1960s - the 'freedom' to deny lodging and service to anybody with brown skin.

But there's at least some consistency to their arguments.

Same-sex Civil Unions, on the other hand - in opposing that, they're just being knobs.

Civil Unions are an imperfect compromise: Same-sex couples reluctantly surrender the right to call their commitment 'marriage' in order not tread on the toes of hyper-sensitive religious conservatives - in return, they expect the conservatives to reluctantly grant them legal protections roughly commensurate with a 'traditional' heterosexual marriage.

Neither side gets what they really want - gay couples have to pretend that Civil Unions don't mirror all that segregationist legalisation from the sixties that claimed to be 'separate, but equal', while conservative Christians have to stop being bigoted idiots for a second and concede that the American principle of 'equal protection under the law' does actually include homosexuals.

But for the most part? A fair deal for either side.

Yet drooling conservatives still showed up in force to fight the Civil Union legislation in Hawaii and after twisting the arm of Governor Lingle, it looks like they've succeeded.

Their 'victory' is a neat little reminder that there's very little 'Christian' about many conservative Christians - and whatever they're fighting for, it's no longer about protecting their own 'rights' but more about denying the rights of other people.

You can put together a not totally retarded argument against gay marriage (or, at least, they're attempting to do just that in the California Supreme Court at the moment.) You cannot, however, argue that there is any moral or legal precedent to deny same-sex couples the right to a Civil Union.

It's so clearly unconstitutional ('all men are created equal', 'equal protection under the law' and 'the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' being some of the inalienable rights the veto violates) that I fail to comprehend how Governor Lingle could stand up in front of the TV cameras with a straight face and argue: "It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials."

That's exactly how civil rights issues are decided - from the Emancipation Proclamation to Loving vs. Virginia. It's a proven fact that if you leave the issue of equal rights up to the electorate, you end up with unmitigated disasters like California's Proposition 8.

If this has taught us anything, it's that conservative Christians are unwilling to compromise on their bigotry at any level - so it's hard not to support the LGBT community when they decide to cast aside compromise themselves and take the fight for marriage equality - gay marriage, not some 'separate but equal namesake' - all the way to the Supreme Court.

Did Stephanie Meyer support Proposition 8?

Stephanie Meyer's 'Twilight' saga has been wildly successful - especially amongst an audience that embraces romance, the supernatural and the concept of 'true love will out.'

Which is why Stephanie Meyer's publicity hounds are scrambling desperately to cover up accusations that Meyer, a devout Mormon who attended Brigham Young university in Salt Lake City*, donated a 'substantial' amount of money in support of 'Proposition 8.'

Prop 8, as I'm sure you already know, was the controversial voter referendum in California, which amended the constitution to redefine marriage as 'between a man and a woman' - thus rendering 18,000 same-sex unions null and void and banning gay marriage for the foreseeable future.

(The California supreme court upheld the amendment on appeal, but legitimized the 18,000 existing marriages.)

This isn't exactly surprising. 45% of out-of-state donations in support of Proposition 8 came from Utah, while 80% to 90% of all door-to-door campaigning against Gay Marriage was carried out by Mormons and members of the Church of Latter Day Saints**.

In all, Mormons donated approximately $20 million dollars to ban same-sex unions in California (some families donated their life savings and their kid's college funds.)

At the very least, a significant amount of money from Meyer's 10% 'tithe' she pays to the Mormon church would have been used to support Proposition 8.

However, accusations still abound that she donated more money directly to the campaign.

In any event, I know this would upset many fans of the 'Twilight' saga.

Most of the ones I know were avid opponents of Proposition 8 and would be very disappointed to learn that Meyer's romanticized version of 'true love' only extends to those of different genders.

NB - Bob, of the blog The Mormons Are Coming! refuted my claim in his blog post 'Did Twilight Fans Help Pass Prop 8?' He points out that no cash contributions were made to the 'Yes on Prop 8' campaign by the church. That being said, over $190,000 of 'in-kind' services were donated in direct support of Proposition 8 - which still leaves their members (including Meyer) culpable.

* ...actually Provo, Utah, an hour south of Salt Lake City, as corrected by the lovely Ashley - Kitty Copy Editor
** ...actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as corrected by Ashley - Kitty Copy Editor

How California made the Wrong Choice the Right Way

NB: Since writing this, I might have even changed my mind. By the logic I put forward here, Loving vs. Virginia - the case which allowed an interracial marriage to take place, despite segregation - should have also been decided in the legislature, not the courts. By that logic, interracial marriage might still be illegal today! Not good!

As readers of Militant Ginger will know, I'm totally in support of same-sex marriage and was intensely disappointed when the California electorate shot down that liberty with their vile amendment to the State Constitution 'Proposition 8.'

However, when the California Supreme Court decided to uphold the amendment during appeal, I felt they made the right decision.

Don't get me wrong - I haven't changed my belief that same-sex couples should have the same right to marriage as heterosexuals. I just feel that this is an issue that's far too important to be decided in the courts.

Proposition 8 was ratified by referendum - the people of California were allowed to personally decide the issue, instead of leaving it up to the state legislature.

52.24% of them voted to redefine marriage as 'between a man and a woman,' obliterating the right same-sex couples previously had to enter into committed marriages themselves.

Sure, the fact that this issue was decided by referendum is incredibly disappointing. California's supposed to be a liberal state and has often led the way in progressive politics. These ballot results exposed underlying conservatism and religious zealotry in what many of us had previous considered 'safe territory.'

But the fact is, the vote was cast and the decision was made.

That it was the wrong decision is not up for debate - but, nevertheless, that's how democracy works. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

When the appeal reached the California Supreme Court, it stopped being about right or wrong and became about democracy and the law - and if the judges had upheld the appeal, it would have thrown everything the issue stands for into disarray.

"Put simply, the appeal complaint is that it's just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the referendum process," wrote Justice George, explaining the Court's decision. "But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail the Democratic process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it."

7 million people voted to redefine the institution of marriage. Despite questions about the morality of that decision, or whether or not it contradicted the US Constitution, you simply can't ignore the fact that 52.24% of voters said 'this is what we want.'

Conservative pundits like Mark Levin often throw around the term 'legislating from the bench,' but if the seven Supreme Court justices had upheld the appeal, overruling the Constitutional amendment, 'legislating from the bench' would have been exactly what supporters of Prop 8 would have accused them of doing.

To them, it would have been a clear demonstration that those seven voices were more important than their seven million. Any faith in the democratic process would have disappeared forever - 'Prop 8' detractors had already seen their freedoms stolen by the ballot box, now the proposition supporters themselves would see their voices overruled by the courts.

Supporters of Prop 8 would never have accepted a Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage. They'd have fought against it and won, as same-sex marriages would only continue until they manufactured another court ruling splintering that liberty once again.

The sad fact is; the only sustainable route to securing same-sex marriage is through the legislature. It has to be a freedom secured through democratic methods, otherwise it will never mean as much as the 'gay marriage' laws passed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine and Vermont.

I'm not arguing that same-sex couples deserve the right to marry. I'm open-minded to comparisons between the struggle for gay rights and the civil rights movement. During the battle against segregation and racism, the majority of voters didn't always make what we know today to be the 'right' decision. The same applies today.

But, nevertheless, we have to uphold the democratic process, otherwise it's meaningless.

The good news: In 2010, the gay rights movement will have same-sex marriage back on the ballot - and this time, they'll win that fight. Last time around, less than 5% of votes separated the gay rights movement from victory. I'm confident that they can win those voters over this time.

When that happens - when a majority of Californians take a stand and support the freedom of same-sex marriage - then it'll be a long overdue, permanent victory. One that religious zealots and conservatives can't take away.

Gay Marriage legalized in Vermont...

Vermont Senate panel approves gay marriage bill

MONTPELIER, Vt. – A Vermont Senate committee has unamimously approved a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Full story here.

What with Washington state approving Domestic Partnerships last week, it looks like what the conservatives call the 'homosexual agenda' is inexorably marching forward.

I liked Washington's compromise - creating a 'partnership' that had all the rights and protections of marriage, but without the thorny problem of actually labeling it marriage.

It was a compromise - and compromise is the lifeblood of progress.

Vermont's decision is sure to infuriate conservatives across America, because it genuinely does redefine the currently accepted notion of marriage (as being between a man and a woman.)

But it's a sign of things to come. It will take years for other states to come on board with what's happening in Massachusetts and Vermont, but eventually they'll have to.

Otherwise this issue will become as sticky as segregation in the 1950s and 1960s - and whatever they might have thought at the time, these days you don't see South Carolina proudly touting achievements like the fact that their Bob Jones university banned interracial dating until 2000.

By the time my son's grown up, I foresee gender being as inconsequential to marriage as race (theoretically) is today.

Steele on Life

The Republican party is currently in free-fall.

Conservatives have all but elected bloated political pundit Rush Limbaugh as their leader - a pill-popping blowhard who has successfully alienated most moderate Republicans.

Meanwhile, in an effort to counter the popularity of President Obama, the GOP billeted their token African-American, Micheal Steele, as leader of the Republican Party.

This is a decision they automatically regretted. Steele quickly revealed a sharp mind and an unwillingness to do as he was told.

Coming from a family of old-school Roosevelt Democrats, it was inevitable that Steele would have different opinions than the stuffy, white party elite. After all, he was the one who promised to bring a little 'hip-hop' to the GOP.

But in a recent GQ interview, those opinions raised more than eyebrows. Steele argued that topics like abortion and gay marriage should be dealt with by individual states, rather than by constitutional amendments - a sharp deviation from the pro-life, anti-gay party's policies.

When asked if homosexuality was a choice (which many Republicans believe) Steele replied: "No. I've never subscribed to that view. You just can’t simply say, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

When asked if women should have the right to choose abortion, he declared: "Yeah. I think that’s an individual choice, absolutely."

It's a tug of war at the moment, between right-wing conservatives and Republican moderates. This dispute threatens to tear the GOP right down the middle - giving even more impunity to President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress and the Senate.

It's unfortunate, too. Michael Steele's progressive attitudes offer a glimmer of hope for the Republican party. In the interview with GQ, he called the Republican party a 'Big Tent' party - one that can embrace people with fundamentally different views and opinions.

The party can go one of two ways now. It can retreat further to the right, embracing Rush Limbaugh and their core supporters in defence of guns and bibles. That way, they'll never again offer an adequete opposition to the Democrats.

Alternatively, they could embrace Michael Steele and become a more moderate party. It would infuriate the right-wing, but open the GOP up to millions of moderates who believe in 'small c' conservatism.

In reality, that's the only direction the party can afford to go in. A shift to center-ground will gain more voters than it loses. After all, even if the far-right are infuriated by compromise on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, who the hell else are they going to vote for?

Washington State okays domestic partnerships

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Same-sex domestic partners would have all of the rights and benefits that Washington offers married couples under a measure passed by the state Senate. Full story here.

The debate about same-sex marriage has been raging in America, with California's decision to amend their constitution coming as a big surprise to many residents of that so-called 'liberal' state.

I've always supported same-sex marriage - not because of any high-minded principles, but because I think same-sex couples should enjoy the same legal rights as married couples. The word 'marriage' is meaningless to me. It's the legal protection that makes this a valid issue.

Therefore, the lawmakers in Washington who've decided to extend legal rights to same-sex 'domestic partners' have accomplished everything that I wanted them to. I think it's a very fair compromise. The definition of 'marriage' is unaffected, while the issue of equality and human rights has been addressed satisfactorily.

If this principle was rolled out across the whole of the United States, perhaps this issue could be put to bed once and for all.

America is a nation in which 'all men' are created equal and have 'inalienable rights.' Those rights include the right to partner yourself with any consenting adult you choose, regardless of gender.

It's not merely a legal or religious issue. It's an issue central to everything that the American nation stands for. Washington state has recognized that and acted accordingly.