After Wisconsin Court Ruling Gay Marriage Remains Our Generations Civil Rights Fight
I had hoped, as many in Wisconsin did, that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court would have decided differently on the process of how the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions was drafted and placed before the voters. The process question was not murky in the eyes of many average folks such as myself, but the legal minds that sit on the bench saw it differently. While I strongly disagree with the outcome, as always I respect the judical process that puts these frothy issues into the hopper, stirs them around, and spits out a ruling.
There will be many who will feel sad and further marginalized by this ruling. That is certainly understandable. But the fight for gay marriage, the civil rights issues of our generation, continues. It is more of a struggle in this state given the draconian language that was used by those who wanted to insure that hate was imbedded in the constitution. They succeeded in 2006, but history over and over again shows that justice, though taking more time than we often like, ultimately prevails.
This morning as the news came over the radio of the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision I thought of another jurist way back in history. Chief Justice Taney ruled in 1857 that even if a black man was free he still could not be a citizen of the United States, and was not able to have the rights of a white man. I am not equating in any way today’s decision from Wisconsin with that of the pre-Civil War ruling, but instead am making a larger point. Regardless of the time in which we live the fight for justice never ends. And as always the power to change what is clearly an injustice resides in the hands of average citizens like those who read this blog, walk the dog, and mow the grass on weekends.
I am under no illusions that the road for gay marriage will not continue to be rocky and all uphill. But that is no reason to lower our sights on making sure that gay couples have the same rights as all other loving couples do when it comes to marriage. The last huge battle over marriage was the one that seems silly today, that being the right for those of different races to be able to wed. As the 2006 fight in Wisconsin was underway to stop the constitutional amendment I kept using a few figures over and over. More than 90% of Americans opposed interracial marriage in 1948. That was the same year that the California Supreme Court required that if interracial couples wanted to be married they must be allowed to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court would not find the ‘correct case’ until 1967 so to render a national decision on the matter.
The amount of money and anger from those who wish to deny gay civil rights will one day be looked at in the same light as those who worked feverishly to deny inter-racial couples their rights.
All those in the fight for justice need to keep their heads up, and their eyes on the horizon.
History predicts a victory on gay marriage.
Do you ever hear of a Catholic that sues due to the church not allowing for a marriage? Yet, disfavored ones are not wed by the church all the time. The same if true in other denominations too. I throw that out as just another reason I do not see the angst here about this matter you do. And as I have said before there will be churches that will marry gay men and women. The churches are changing too. Gay rights is whole society thing, and all are moving forward. Some faster than others. A Lutheran minister two weeks ago held a wedding ceremony for a gay couple that some of my friends attended. Things are happening more than meets the public eye already.
Alos, I think the five states that now have gay marriage show how it can be done.
Gay marriage will not come about nationally through a law. It will be a court decision that makes it clear as to the constitutional reason not to disallow gay marriage.
Democracy has never been about the easiest way to get to the other side. Trust me, as a gay man in a decade-long relationship I can tell you that our nation has a long ways to go to equality. But as an American I know we are moving in the correct direction, and I know that we will get to the place where the law will protect us.
That is the grand thiing about this country. There is always a progressive march onwards.
I think it is unrealistic to expect churches to adhere to same sex marriage and for gay couples to refrain from suing them for discrimination.
It’s a shame that it will come to that because no one can think of a way to craft a law about it.
It took a constitutional amendment, a civil rights act, and bloodshed in Mississippi to gain equality under the law for black people.
It took a consitutional amendment for women to vote, too.
But somehow you think that gays will not have it so difficult.
I am not as sure as you.
Thanks for commenting.
There will be no law written, as such, when the gay marriage issue is resolved. Instead it will be a court ruling that will show the constitutional reasonsing as to why gay marriage can not be banned.
I might ask you to consider other civil rights issues, or other concerns of large import in this nation, and the way they were handled. When Brown v. Bd. of Education was handed down it did not say how to remedy the matter. It did however state clearly what was not, and what was, constitutional. The huge arrary of bussing cases and other legal actions that took place for decades shows that there is no way to handle a democracy without some messy situations. That is the nature of democracy.
In regards to the church issue there are those today who are straight and are denied a marriage by a church. For instance if one is a not ‘good’ member of a church they can be denied a wedding. I am more of the thinking of those like the famed jurist, Chancellor Kent, who thought that the nod of the head from a member of the clergy may look nice at a wedding, but as long as the consent of the two to be wed are met, the other need not be present.
You might also note that in the early days of the country when many lived outside villages or ‘cities’ there was no minister giving the vows. In Texas there an arrangement made called the “bond marriage” in which the man and woman signed an agreement, and was witnessed, and that was all there was to it. They were married. Common-law marriage resulted from these practices.
In others words there does not need to be the layers of complexity unless we want them to exist.
So how would one write a law that permits same sex marriage without forcing churches to marry same sex partners? I think this is an important point if the claim is that this is a civil rights issue. Would you allow discrimination by some churches? How would that law be written?
“Be it now known that churches may choose to marry same sex couples and, if they do, those same sex couples shall be afforded equality under the law with heterosexual couples. Churches retain the right to discriminate against same sex marriages if they so choose also.”
What is the thinking in the gay community about how to write that law? If the law is written that pits the state or federal government against the church, there’ll be Supreme Court trouble over that one.
Somebody had to think this one through, yes? I mean you know what will happen in society if a gay couple sues a fundamentalist church because they are discriminated against because of religious beliefs, yes? There’ll be trouble in River City, I imagine.
You might mention some of the rights denied to us.
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims’ recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
I do not wish churches to be forced into marrying anyone they do not wish to wed. There will be churches that will choose to wed gay people, just as there are now churches that are embracing gay clergy. I know a Lutheran minister that is already doing so in a very low-key way. The great debate between the churches has been interesting to watch unfold on the clergy issue over the past years, and more of that will be seen in the future. The marriage issue will be one the churches will need to iron out for themselves.
As for the government, yes, I must insist on legal recognition of gay marriage. As of mid-2009, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies married, civil unionized and domestic partnershipped same-sex couples approximately 1,100 federal benefits currently reserved as special privileges to opposite-sex married couples. There is no way anything less than marriage will fly for legal and social reasons.
Anything less than full marriage and all the rights that come with marriage will not be enough. There is only one answer.
Gay couples must be allowed to be married.
Do you wish to force churches to marry gay people or do you wish the government to sanction a relationship committment?
Marriage is a committment deeply embedded in church beliefs and has resulted in laws recognizing the personal committment of a man and a woman. The gender component is less important to me. I support civil unions between human adults (no animals or objects can commit to each other) but I don’t support forcing churches to marry people against their beliefs. How would you protect the rights of a church to refrain from marrying gay people if it is against their belief system?