Equal Marriage – Prop 8 Ruling in California

So, the anti-gay Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional in California.

[Here’s the catch-up if you’ve not been paying attention – California allowed some same-sex couples to marry, then there was a people’s poll on the same day as the Obama election which was passeed by 52% to 48%. It determined a new amendment to the California constitution which said, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”. Now, a legal challenge to that has gone through the courts which has found that this in itself was unconstitutional. This has ramifications for those other states which had adopted similar measures and world-wide implications for where California goes today, so many other places will go tomorrow].

Even in the time since Prop 8 was put to the people, the argument has moved on, with Argentina becoming the first South American country to introduce Equal Marriage. (And Mexico offering the first lucky couple a free honeymoon).

Whilst Civil Partnership in this country once appeared quite progressive, it now does not seem to be so. A separate instutution for gay couples seems far from satisfactory. Gradually in one place after another, the argument for Equal Marriage is being made and is being won.

And it moves me too. Even though I’ve long been convinced that people need to be treated equally under the law, when victories are won, it is often the words of the judges or politicians which move me even more than those folk who just want to get wed.

Here’s the key sentence from yesterday’s judgement:

“Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as ‘the right to same-sex marriage’ would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy — namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.”

That’s the bit of it that made me feel something. It is by statements like that, that gay people are becoming citizens the world over, who have the same rights as anyone else.

Now, I’ve no doubt that this one may yet run and run. I expect that it will be challenged in a higher court. I’m not naive enough to think that its all over yet. However, I do believe that the argument is being won. Little by little, one more step along the world we go and each little victory tastes sweet and wholesome.

Want a taste from the UK?

Here’s part of the judgement from the new UK Supreme Court in the case which blocked the Home Office from deporting gay people to countries in which they faced violence and persecution for being gay. (The government had argued that they should be “discreet”):

“To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny his fundamental right to be who he is.
“Homosexuals are as much entitled to freedom of association with others who are of the same sexual orientation as people who are straight.”

Little by little.

Step by step.

Sweetness by sweetness.

And just in case you need something to connect these legal cases with real people, take a look at Rosemary’s post this morning in which she writes about the ordinariness of the wonder of Duncan and Kenneth plighting their troth.

Hold the Front Page

The Herald has a helpful story today (page 3, actually) about the movement that is building in Scotland for Equal Marriage. Equal Marriage means opening up marriage to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples. It also means that anyone who can currently conduct weddings should be able to conduct weddings on the same basis for same-sex couples as opposite sex couples and in the same locations. In short it means no discrimination in law between gay couples and straight couples wanting to get married. (Anything else ain’t Equal Marriage).

Anyway, the article can be found here. There’s a pic of me taken yesterday in St Mary’s. (No, that’s not a crown I’m wearing, its just the altarpiece behind me!)

There is an interesting allusion to a poll conducted by the Scottish Green Party:

A poll of 1000 Scottish adults conducted on behalf of the Scottish Green Party in April found that 58% agreed that same sex couples should have the right to marry, while 19% disagreed.

The bits quoting me are as follows:

The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow, said he was strongly supportive of the idea. He said: “Anyone who can marry a couple currently should be able to marry same sex-couples.

“This is about justice for everyone. Civil partnerships have been a wonderful thing, but they are not equal; being separate isn’t being equal and the Government would be wise to move towards equality as soon as possible.”

He said the argument that allowing gay marriage could threaten the institution of marriage, was “a silly idea”. “I don’t think any gay couple have ever made a married couple feel less married,” he said.

There is also an editorial

Equality of treatment under the law is a much-vaunted bedrock of British society. So is marriage. Those who argue that the concept of marriage is weakened by extending it to gay and lesbian couples should consider whether the opposite might be true and that allowing same-sex couples to marry would be a public statement of support for the values they rightly cherish.