FORWARD: I apologize in advance for the length of this post. For those of you with little time- the entire op-ed below can be abridged to: “Yay for gay marriage!!” Fear not, lots of short frivolous posts to come. Okay, for those of you with less-than-engaging jobs, onward.
Without a doubt, the last two weeks have been either incredible or incredibly awful- depending on which side of the marriage equality debate you find yourself on. In just half a month, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has doubled- from two to four. What’s more, these two particular victories in Vermont & Iowa are far more than simple ticks on a scoreboard because both of them represent a unique kind of victory for the marriage equality movement. Regardless of your stance, there is no doubt that this issue is one of rising importance and that the prevailing winds are shifting- in a decidedly progressive direction. Yes evangelicals, the clouds are gathering. But don’t worry…because it’s raining skittles!!
So what made the Vermont ruling so significant? Well, for starters, it wasn’t a “ruling” at all. For the first time, a state legalized same-sex marriage through its legislature rather than its Supreme Court. The VT House of Representative’s presented a bill, passed it handily and the State Senate followed suit. There was a momentary scare when VT’s Governor, Republican Archie Bunker, said he’d veto it if it made it on to his desk. The Governor can veto any bill unless it’s passed by a 2/3 majority- a steep requirement given how divisive this issue is. Despite the threat of a veto (or perhaps because of it) Vermont’s legislature overrode the Governor’s veto with a three pointer (technically a 2/3er) at the buzzer. The bill passed and the tally went to three states that allow same-sex marriage.
Finally, marriage equality was handed down from elected representatives instead of so-called ‘activist judges’- a blow to the argument often cited by the Protect Marriage crew. But the Governor’s veto itself (though it was overruled) was also significant. Conservatives have long argued that it’s not fair for the decisions of a few judges to overrule the will of the people. However, the Governor’s attempt to veto this bill (along with similar vetoes by CA Governor Schwarzenegger back in 2005 and 2007) did essentially the same thing. The people of Vermont elected their representatives. Those representatives REPRESENTED the people of Vermont- and voted by a majority to legalize same-sex marriage. Despite that, the Governor saw fit to veto the will of the people’s representatives and push his own agenda. The example is not completely apples to apples (since the Governor is elected unlike some judges) but the overarching point stands-the Governor was poised to discard the majority’s decision to serve his own interests. This fact could serve to neutralize this as an effective argument from those on the Right in future debates on the issue.
Next to the plate was Iowa. I think I speak for many when I say that my reaction to the ruling was “Iowhaaa??” It was a stunning victory in a heartland state that came just as those in Massachusetts and Connecticut had- from the state’s Supreme Court. But what makes it significant is not the decision itself, which fell short of the sweeping legal statements made in the California Supreme Court's decision, but that it tackled head-on and put to rest some of the (faulty) claims made so often by the Protect Marriage camp.
From the beginning, there’s been an internal debate among those who’ve fought for marriage equality as to whether it should be presented as a ‘gay’ thing at all. Until now, the prevailing wisdom has been- um, no- definitely not. This stance is based on the fear that if you present the issue as a ‘gay’ one, you lose every time. Follow? People don’t like gays and so if Prop 8 were called- “I Heart Gays- Check Yes or No”, it would go down in flames (pun very much intended). So- keep it sterile and inclusive and safely in the realm of puppies and unicorns (straight puppies and unicorns, of course) and you’ve got a shot. Except that the “No on 8” campaign didn’t present it as a gay issue- and they still lost. Until the quintessential fear- let’s call it the “Super Gay Elephant in the Room”- at the heart of this debate is challenged and conquered, any victory will be a hollow one.
The CA Supreme Court’s ruling was a legal argument delivered with a neat, tidy legalese [read: inaccessible to common folk] that said, basically, due to the language already present in the California State Constitution their hands were tied and so they couldn’t deny marriage rights to anyone (yes, even gays). They weren’t extending marriage rights to gay people; they simply couldn’t deny them those rights, or any others for that matter, because of the pesky Constitution, see?
And THIS is where the Iowa ruling shines for it’s nothing less than a manifesto for marriage equality- and a far less burdened and legalistic one at that. Of course, they used all the same legal arguments and framework that other courts have- we can’t discriminate, the constitution says so, all men are created equal, blah blah blah. But then they took it further- A LOT further.
They said, in no short order, that marriage is a civil right that cannot be denied to anyone, that gay people fall under the category of “anyone” and that denying them that right violates not only the equal protection clause of Iowa’s Constitution but also the same clause present in the US Constitution (though they were careful not to hit that point home too hard, lest Justice Scalia’s head explode). They also tackled the usually hands off issue of whether being gay is a choice. This is an issue that has stumped many before, because if you can’t prove that homosexuality is an inborn and unchangeable state, then how can you protect it with the same vigor as, say, race or ethnicity or gender? The Iowa court neutralized this by citing one of the experts called to the stand- a retired psychiatrist AND…a witness for the defense. The psychiatrist cited studies’ showing that sexual orientation is not fixed and that it has been proven to change in individuals over time. So, it’s a choice then. Slam dunk for the defense, right? Nope. The judges asked a simple but all-important follow-up question. They asked what the effects of changing sexual orientation were on those individuals that did so or attempted to. Were there any negative effects when a person was pressured- by family or religion or just the collective pressure of living in a society that doesn’t condone or accept their ‘choice’- to reverse their sexual orientation? Drum roll please…because the expert conceded that there are indeed studies that show that trying to change one’s orientation is harmful- in some cases extremely so- to psychiatric health. He shoots, he scores…awe, but for the other team. This essentially negated the defense's argument because if you CAN’T prove that it’s a choice for everyone but you DO know that attempts to change it have been proven harmful, then the nature/nurture argument is off the table. Now that being gay was (or could not be proven otherwise) just like race or gender- it had to be protected. With that, the judges’ hands were free to address a slew of other topics including most notably: gay parenthood.
Numerous experts were brought in and studies were cited, all saying the same thing: the sexual orientation of a parent had no ill effects on the health and stability of their children. What they proved instead was that a stable home- straight OR gay- was the only determining factor in the well being of a child. Furthermore, they reasoned, since marriage and all the legal and societal protections it provides is an ideal arrangement for providing a stable home- preventing gay parent’s from marrying was tantamount to creating a less stable environment in which to raise children. Got that? In order to “protect our children” (an argument cited so often by the Protect Marriage folks), you must allow gay parents to marry. They shoot, and they score…again for the other team. Some of the most basic arguments used by those against gay marriage- that being gay is a choice and that gay marriage will endanger our children- were turned on their heads and used as the basis for marriage equality. Taste that? That’s sweet victory. (I just noticed the letters spelling ‘irony’ are found within the word victory. Coincidence?)
We can only hope that these two victories are just the beginning of larger things to come. Though the loss of Proposition 8 was heartbreaking, it’s proving to be just the galvanizing moment so many people needed to start getting real about marriage equality. There’s no doubt too that part of this movement’s success owes a great deal to the inspiring campaign of Barack Obama (and of Hillary Clinton- whoop whoop!). The election motivated so many of us to get involved in our government and in our communities to pull the country back from the moral, financial and political abyss it was perched on. While Obama himself has still failed to go so far as to support gay marriage, I believe he has been sending us secret messages about it (you know, like the Terrorist Fist Bump). During his remarkable acceptance speech (aaand, cue nostalgic goose bumps), he said that our work has just begun and that his victory and any victories to come would not be his- but ours. Our president, representatives, judges or anyone in power won’t do anything unless we make them. Their job is simply to represent our will, lobby for our interests and to shape this country into one that reflects the spirit and character we demand. So it’s our job to force their hand. Obama won’t support gay marriage or anything else important to us until our collective voices- which are growing to a crescendo every day- tell him he must. He is a man of reason and so when reason dictates that he reassess his stance on this issue- he will. Democracy is a bitch, turns out. A good dictatorship requires only a good dictator. But a good democracy requires that we ALL be dictators- of our own fate.
Write your representatives, call your congressmen and women and talk to your neighbors and co-workers. Every battle is won one vote at a time and continuing to rely on the goodwill- or even good judgment- of those in power simply won’t suffice. Make it a priority, get involved in something and be a part of your solution. Our democracy depends on nothing less.
