Rev Irene Monroe

A fleeting moment of democracy for California's same-sex couples

Filed By Rev Irene Monroe | May 20, 2008 6:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics, The Movement
Tags: California, California State Supreme Court, gay marriage, marriage, marriage equality, same-sex marriage

I have learned as both a pastor and as a member belonging to several minority groups- African-American, women and lesbian- that a popular opinion on an issue does not always reflect the right choice. Too often, the right choice and the moral high ground on an issue derive from a small struggling group trying both to be seen and heard among the cacophony of dissenting voices and opposing votes. Moreover, it is with this group we see democracy's tenacity working, where those relegated to the fringes of society can begin to sample what those in society take for granted as their inalienable right.

Last week we saw democracy work. In a 4-to-3 decision, California Supreme Court ruled that a "separate and unequal" system of domestic partnership for same-sex couples is not only blatantly discriminatory but it is also unconstitutional.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights," the Court wrote.

However, the knot is not completely tied for California's same-sex couples.

A conservative backlash in California has already begun with opponents gathering signatures to place on the November ballot, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

California will not be alone it is efforts. Florida will vote on a constitutional amendment in November, and, Arizona, presidential hopeful John McCain's state, is considering doing the same. Twenty-seven states already have constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

When society narrowly defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, it is not only policing the sexual behaviors of lesbian and gay people, but society is also policing the sexual behaviors of heterosexuals. Handcuffing marriage to a heterosexual paradigm merely chokes its possibility of ever flourishing and lasting, especially as we are coming to understand the fluidity of not only gender and sexual identities but also of the constant changing configuration of family units.

In the Court's need to deal fairly with same-sex couples given the widespread public sentiment against same-sex marriage did it ignore the will of the people?

The California Court's decision can be read two ways.

The Court upheld the democratic process by offering same- sex couples marriage and not "marriage -lite" with civil unions. Alternatively, the Court overstepped its authority, imposing its will on an issue the country, let alone the state of California, is not ready for.

With purportedly more than 1.2 million signatures gathered to place on the November ballot, more than twice the requisite number needed to initiate the process of passing a constitutional amendment to put the question on the 2008 election ballot, is the democratic process thwarted?

To put lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people's equal rights on the ballot for a popular vote is both wrong-hearted and wrong-headed. If I waited for slaveholders to free my ancestors predicated on a ballot vote we all wouldn't be living in the America we know today.

The proponents of the ballot question are a well financed, and well-organized voting constituency. As a tyrannical majority, they represent themselves as a formidable might that have power and money, and not as a group of people advocating a moral right. Marriage for them is defined solely as between a man and a woman, and any variation of their gender prescription within this institution is vehemently beaten down. They use the ballot not to promote justice but instead to promulgate their bigoted agenda, and democracy works only when their side wins.

I have learned, however, that democracy is an ongoing process where people are part of a participatory government working to dismantle all existing discriminatory laws that truncate their full participation in society. The work of democracy along this troubling human timeline is rooted in justice and social change allowing us to see those faces and to hear those voices in a society of the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected, and the dispossessed.

Democracy can only begin to work when those relegated to the fringes of society can begin to sample what those in society take for granted as their inalienable right. And sometimes for that to happen people, like our Massachusetts lawmakers and now California's, have to step in to make the democratic process work for us all.

While LGBTQ families in California have not seen the last in this ballot battle, they are getting, at least for now, a sample of what we LGBTQ families in Massachusetts can take for granted -democracy.


Recent Entries Filed under The Movement:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


a tyrannical majority

That is an amazing way to put it. Few people realize that the reason we have checks & balances and different branches of government is to make sure that a tyrannical majority doesn't trample the rights of any minority.

Great post!

Great insightful post! I think it is also worth noting that in the decision, the justices also consider the idea of the name "marriage" vs. that of "civil union" or "domestic partnership", and go further and interject the idea of a universal LEGAL name for that joining vs that of a religious one...very interesting reading as a follow up to this post!

For over a year I have been dealing with a special agent in the New York Field Office of the FBI concerning a murder contract that had been made against me by a certain associate of an organized crime family involved with the gay nightlife scene in New York, and I have just uploaded two documents to my website that include the details concerning my knowledge of current organized crime control over several gay bars and sex clubs in New York City.

I have decided to go on a hunger strike over the failure of the New York Field Office to provide me with the protection that I have asked in light of the murder contract and subsequent death threats that were made against me, and I am appalled that in this day organized crime still has a role in gay nightlife.

In the future I do not recommend that people go to or cooperate with law enforcement because based on my experience it will do nothing to protect you, and once it gets what it wants could care less about what happened to the victims of crime.

The idea of the will of the majority certainly is fleeting. It seems to me that often it's just cover for people to do whatever they were going to do, a process argument so that they don't have to present the substance of what they're saying to a hostile audience.

Especially in this case, where the CA legislature passed same-sex marriage in two successive sessions.

I read this article a few days ago. The November election may not be the end of California marriage equality even if the amendment is passed.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9292697?source=most_viewed

While I obviously disagree with the movement to add an amendment to the California constitution, I have to say that the system of government is working perfectly. The law was unconstitutional. If you don't like that, then you have to change the constitution.

Our job is to make sure that the majority of the people don't want to change the document.

To put lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people's equal rights on the ballot for a popular vote is both wrong-hearted and wrong-headed. If I waited for slaveholders to free my ancestors predicated on a ballot vote we all wouldn't be living in the America we know today.

Amen to that, Rev. Irene!