California’s gay marriage ruling will reverberate for years to come. And, as many pundits and press have pointed out, the state’s Supreme Court pulls a lot of sway in cases of social evolution.
In 1948, that very court decided Perez v. Sharp, a precursor to Loving v. Virginia, which abolished bans on interracial marriage. Perez v. Sharp, as journalist Adam Liptak points out, came up three times during oral arguments into California’s gay marriage decision.
Three times [Chief Justice Ronald M. George] quoted from the court’s 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, a high point in the history of a prestigious and influential court.
“The essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice,” Chief Justice George said, quoting Perez.
The success of the Perez argument has reinvigorated the civil rights argument surrounding gay equality: are they one in the same? The New York Times editorial board certainly think so – Saturday’s edition featured an unabashed celebration of last week’s ruling. And, more importantly, a nod toward George’s Perez analogy – and a jab at Republican John McCain’s vows for judicial justice:
The new opinion found that “the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice” is fundamental. The court said California’s strong domestic partnership statute was not enough to solve the inequality problem.
“An individual’s sexual orientation – like a person’s race or gender – does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold rights,” wrote Chief Justice Ronald George, first appointed to the bench by Gov. Ronald Reagan.
He noted that “tradition alone” did not justify the denial of a constitutional right to same-sex couples, any more than it did to interracial couples. Coming on the heels of John McCain’s rant against so-called “activist judges,” the decision provides a refreshing example of a Republican-dominated state court transcending ideology and political pressures to render a scrupulously fair ruling based on law, precedents and common sense.
Of course we all know that social conservatives won’t buy what they perceive to be bologna.
Bryan Fischer of Renew America, one of our favorite sources for zealous right-wing rants, penned a recent column rehashing the “activist” argument:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Thursday’s California Supreme Court ruling overturning the state’s ban on gay marriage is just another catastrophic example of judicial activism on steroids.
Four black-robed oligarchs callously overrode the expressed will of 4,618,673 Californians who voted in 2000 to define marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman. When four people can ignore the democratically enacted decision of 4 million people, we no longer have a republic at all. This is a form of tyranny, plain and simple.
Law professor Andrew Koppelman, in a conversation with Liptak, directly contradicts Fischer’s thinking, highlighting, again, Perez: “Perez was a really courageous decision. It was handed down at a time when it was just taken for granted that legally entrenched racism was not anything you could do anything about.”
Thanks to the civil rights movement and fair courts, we now know that we can do something about legally entrenched discrimination. Unfortunately we can’t do anything about people like Fischer. But, if California’s past is any indication, conservative opposition won’t be too much of an obstacle.
[Image By Darryl Bush for AP]
Charley
“Social evolution”. Good term. It, and natural selection combine to define “higher power” found in 12 step programs for those who can’t stomach the religious definition of god.
Tom
One would think that since many of the gains achieved in the gay rights movement can be traced back to the victories in the black civil rights movement, there would exist a stronger bond and mutual respect between the two groups. Unfortunately, forces that benefit from the divisions within marginalized groups have been quite successful in keeping the two groups divided.
It is also unfortunate that the national gay rights organizations do not do more to reach out to other ethnic minority groups and spearhead a national campaign to end the racism which exists in mainstream gay culture.
Charley
Tom
NAACP California wrote an amicus brief in this case, supporting gay marriage.
Our detractors are mostly the fundamental religious folk who influence the decisions of lawmakers..
M Shane
The intersting legal point with regards to Bryan Fischer’s incredibly naive arguement that a vote by the Supreme Court trumping a referendum is defiant of the principles of our Republic : One of the dangers explicilty guarded against in setting about a balance of powers is that of tryany of the majority. The Constitution leaves this condition with the High Courts, because the mases in defiance of justice, can impose thier will. Montaign’s “balance of powers” if properly exercised guards against a number of agencies overstepping their bounds.
This is a clear case of where Fischer confuses Democracy with a Republic.
He should be more confused about the president taking over the Judicial and legislative branches: which has happened.
M Shane
Charley:
I’m inclined to agree with Tom: The NAACP must differ a lot in other places. My brother, who has been (probably the only white) member in Idaho, claims that he is encpountering trouble becaus the Black ministers are steamrolling that religious bigotry. It used to be the same here in the midwest.
I think that gay racism varies here. I don’t think that the gay organisation wants to do much that would cause conflict.
SeaFlood
First of all, NAACP is not the be-all/end-all for B/black people. In fact, it is racist to think or say so since no one would think to identify, say, the KKK as being the voice of white people.
Secondly, I agree with Tom. Many of our newly-found rights as gay people are based on civil-rights for B/black people. However, that does not mean gay white people are ready to disavow their white privilege and work with, say, gay people of color to end or at least confront (have to have a confrontation before something can be eradicated) racism within our communities.
Divide and conquer has always been the way of it.
But also, let’s not forget… a court of law does not dictate how things “fit” into our culture/society as Americans. While people of different “races” can marry, they still suffer various stigmas. Even within our gay/queer communities, that happens sometimes (like someone thinking the only reason why a white man would date a B/black man revolves around the size of the latter’s penis…) — so let’s not get it twisted. Law and public opinion don’t always go hand-in-hand.
However, I am glad to see the case argued so well. And I can’t wait till marriage for all comes to WA!
Charley
The NAACP was very important in advancing civil rights. They educated the public and marched with MLK. We do not have today a LGBT organization to equal what they did to implement social justice and bring people together.
Our organizations have yuppie values and are fundraising machines. Not so with the NAACP in the early days. They fought to end economic oppression.
Marriage equal rights is about the only correlation between black and gay civil rights. Rosa Parks gave a good example of civil disobedience, and it brought about change. NAACP supported her actions, however, our LGBT organizations frown on individual activism.
Mr C
Amen Sea Flood,
No need to comment further on that. However, I will add M Shane that the NAACP differs depending on location some states and cities are very different. While the older set is still marinated in religious principle. The rest are all not.
Case in point: When Mayor Jim Nagle in Ft Lauderdale was trying blame certain actions on the gay community there and tried to have certain things banned. The Ft Lauderdale branch of the NAACP stood with the gay community and fought mayor Nagle.
And Tom is very right when he said: It is also unfortunate that the national gay rights organizations do not do more to reach out to other ethnic minority groups and spearhead a national campaign to end the racism which exists in mainstream gay culture.
And this very true, these organizations know that racism in our community is the “dirty little secret” kept away from the heterosexual community.
But it’s time for HRC, GLAAD, and all of the other groups to do more unifying everyone. Because as a whole we’re not. And if anyone has never thought that we weren’t just look at the feelings and expressions of all since this Democratic primary has been in full swing.
All I can say is WOW!
We must eventually overcome and COME TOGETHER!
Otherwise divide and conquer it shall be!