The Gay Rites Movement

What to make of the California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage?

The Court’s 4-3 ruling might be overturned this November, as traditional-marriage advocates are working to place on the 2008 ballot an initiative that would define marriage in the California Constitution as the union of one man and one woman. If the initiative makes it to the ballot, California will replace Massachusetts as the epicenter of the American culture war, at least for the next few months.

Will traditional-marriage advocates successfully nullify this ruling? They could not in Massachusetts, and there’s a strong possibility that they could also fail in the Golden State.

The gay-marriage war will be won by whichever side amasses the most political power. In Massachusetts, gay-marriage advocates unified to prevent efforts by traditional-marriage advocates to place a gay-marriage ban on the ballot. They worked tirelessly to convince pro-traditional-marriage legislators to reconsider their views, and labored mightily to elect a pro-gay-marriage governor, Deval Patrick, as the successor to the pro-traditional-marriage Mitt Romney.

In short, gay-marriage advocates outworked, outmaneuvered, outpaced, and—arguably—outsmarted traditional-marriage advocates in the Bay State. One can easily see the same scenario unfolding in California this year.

Having observed the Massachusetts gay-marriage battle, I must say that traditional-marriage advocates severely underestimate how committed gay-marriage advocates are to “marriage equality.”  While I disagreed with the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gay-marriage ruling on judicial-restraint grounds, I can’t condemn those who fought aggressively to preserve the ruling.

One can disagree with the tactics of gay-marriage advocates (tactics that, in the eyes of Bay State conservatives, denied the people the right to vote on this issue) while admiring their resolve. Massachusetts gay-marriage advocates were a strong, devoted army: they fought and fought and fought, and used any means necessary to prevent the state’s gay-marriage ruling from being nullified. They were determined to keep the ruling alive, and they ultimately won out.

As much as I disagreed with the Massachusetts court’s ruling, I can’t find fault with gay-marriage advocates for their aggressive efforts to “protect” the decision. If I were on their side—if I firmly believed that gay marriage was a civil right and a moral necessity for a democracy—I would have fought tooth and nail to defend the ruling, using any tactic necessary in the name of preserving what I believed to be equality. Quite frankly, I wish the American conservative movement had the same steely determination gay-marriage “progressives” in Massachusetts had.

Unfortunately, the American conservative movement does not have that determination, which is why traditional-marriage advocates will likely fail in California. To gay-marriage advocates, this is an issue of utmost importance; in Massachusetts, I saw gay-marriage advocates whose determination and desire to preserve “marriage equality” was so strong that many seemed ready to lay down their lives if necessary if it meant preserving the Massachusetts court’s ruling. If gay-marriage advocates in California are as resolute as gay-marriage advocates in Massachusetts, then they have already won—because they will fight as aggressively as Martin Luther King Jr. fought to remove the foot of segregation from his neck.

I disagree with the California decision, just as I disagreed with the Massachusetts finding. Ideally, this issue would be resolved by the legislative and executive branches, not by the judicial branch. The logic behind the ruling—enshrining equality for gay and lesbian couples—may be noble, but the legal thought process is mistaken.

However, the ruling is likely a permanent one, just as Massachusetts’ decision was. California is not conservative—and in so many ways, neither is America for that matter. While traditional-marriage advocates will speak loudly, they could still find themselves being drowned out by those who will yell, “Live and let live!”

This ruling came at a perfect time for gay-marriage advocates. Unlike 2003-2004, when the conservative movement exploited the Massachusetts ruling to shotblock John Kerry’s White House hopes, this ruling will not help the American right. The GOP brand name is in need of serious repair, and cries of “Stop judicial activism! Vote against Obama!” will not undo the damage the party has sustained over the past three years. The right simply lacks the political apparatus to make hay out of this ruling. The elephant’s tusks have been removed.

I predict that California will join Massachusetts as a pro-gay-marriage state. Considering American sociopolitical trends, I also predict that it won’t be the last one.