You may be surprised to hear me say this but I think the recent decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8 was a good thing:

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8′s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.

Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May.

All things considered, I think that a decision by the court to strike down Prop. 8 would have been counterproductive to the same-sex marriage movement. Marriage equality has been having a great run lately, most notably in states like Vermont where same-sex marriage was passed by both houses of the state legislature and signed into law by the Governor. In my view, this is the better approach and robs the opposition of their favorite “Activist Judges!!” canard.

Overall, my prediction is that Prop. 8 gets voted off the books in a few years.

To help bring that about, jump over to the Courage Campaign and do what you can to help:

In response to the court’s decision, the Courage Campaign will hit the California airwaves in the next 72 hours with a 60-second TV ad version of “Fidelity” — the heartbreaking online video viewed by more than 1.2 million people, making it the most-watched video ever in the history of California politics.

We are launching this provocative new TV ad in the spirit of Harvey Milk’s call to “come out, come out wherever you are” and proudly tell the stories of the people most affected by the passage of Prop 8 — in moving images set to the beat of Regina Spektor’s beautiful song.

Be fearless. Watch this 60-second “Fidelity” TV ad now and — if you want more people to see it — contribute $25, $50, $100, $250 (or as much as you can afford) to expand our ad buy immediately in Bakersfield, Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco ASAP.

Update: Poppa Sully’s reaction is similar to mine:
Politically, this seems to me the perfect decision. It would have been dreadful if voters were retroactively told their valid vote was somehow null and void – it would have felt like a bait and switch and provoked a horrible backlash.

It would have been equally dreadful if those couples lawfully wed were subsequently forced into divorce by the court. And these married couples and their families and children will now become the focus of the debate in California, as they should be. They are the evidence that we are right: that extending the blessings and responsibilities of full family life to gay men and lesbians is a good and conservative and integrating thing. We need now to put these families forward as our core argument. Their lives are our best case. Like mixed-race married couples in another era, they will show that there is nothing to fear here and much to celebrate.

Metavirus filed this under: , ,  
  1. terrasears says:

    I am very pleased that they kept the marriages intact! I know that was a major worry…

    • Metavirus says:

      agreed -- that was my biggest worry. although, if you think about it, how weird is it that there is this class of 18,000 people out there with marriages that are only kinda-sorta recognized by the state. can they get a divorce? hmmm

  2. Kevin says:

    I understand a prop is being planned for 2012, like a redo…hopefully they can get it done that way…or legislatively…either way is good…

  3. Schu says:

    We either have to find some civil ceremony that lows for a marriage like contract for these people, so that they can have insurance coverage, etc …, or we have to rewrite all of our insurance laws, contract laws, and inheritance laws that use the word marriage.

    • Metavirus says:

      the simplest thing to do… would be to allow gay people to get married! then we wouldn't have to re-write many laws at all. that way, marriage is marriage, without the need for wedging in a concept of "civil unions".

      • Schu says:

        As a civil ceremony yes, as a Christian marriage ceremony no. I do not support them because I agree with their life stile, but because of the injustice that our laws place on them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors