Prop 8...Again

I had thought that if I heard one more word about Prop 8 in California that my head would explode. Turns out, that's not the case. Don't get me wrong; I do feel a wave of nausea come over me. But there is no cranial explosion, so that seems good. That doesn't mean that I have the stomach for some long and droning post, because I do not. That just means that I have the capacity to muse over a point that some guy who thinks his point matters is trying to make.

If you have been blissfully living under a rock or in a world where you don't have to hear about Prop 8 all the live long day, I envy you. But here's the scoop: On Friday, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (probably related to Jimmie Walker...Dyn-o-mite!) essentially overturned California's ban on gay marriage, aka, Prop 8. And now a one Tony Perkins, who is the head of something called the Family Research Council, says that the judge never should have stayed on the case in the first place because of the judge's own alleged gayness.

A homo judge?! Blasphemy! Whatever. Tony Perkins (not Anthony Perkins; that was Psycho) says that Judge Walker "...should have recused himself from the case due to his own sexuality." Perkins was apparently on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday and said, "I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows -- and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that -- who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments...This is far from over."

Now, now, Tony. Let's just calm down a little. Try and keep your homophobia in check so that you can get your facts straight (no pun intended), all right? OK, then. See, Judge Walker is not openly gay. It's a rumor, but it's not an open secret and/or fact, depending on which moniker you prefer. Usually when there's a rumor that isn't true, especially if it involves one being gay, folks tend to speak out and set the record straight (pun totally intended this time). I'm not saying that means that Judge Walker is gay. I'm just saying.

And regardless as to how I feel about Prop 8, I really do hate it when something is voted on by the people and then it is struck down by a judge. That frustrates the hell out of me. Aside from the incredible waste of time and money, the right of the people to vote is kind of an important element in this country. Having it taken away or essentially nullified by one judge could be doing more harm than good. And I realize that the people can be as dumb as a box of hair a lot of the time. That isn't up for debate. What's up for debate is when people vote for something and then they're told by a judge that they can't do that. Well, if they can't do that then don't have them vote on it in the first place. Why don't you folks get those ducks in a row and stop spending my money on rearranging your ducks?

But Tony Perkins isn't the only one with his boxers in a knot. No, according to The Huffington Post the American Family Association called the decision "outrageous and unconscionable" as well as saying that it "...should never have been allowed to happen." They insisted that "Walker...should have recused himself "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Hmmm. Interesting.

OK, I get their point. But the problem here is that there point is coming from their interests and from what they want. Of course they think that a gay judge is going to rule in favor of the gay side of things. But why wouldn't the same litmus test be applied to the other side of that argument? If it had been a straight judge and the straight judge had ruled in favor of Prop 8, wouldn't gay folks be saying that a straight judge should have recused himself because his judgment would have been "clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity"? I think that's a fair argument to make.

The thing that the AFA and that Tony Perkins guy are overlooking is that Judge Walker is just that. He's a judge. It's right there in his title: Judge Walker. Part of being a judge is being impartial. That's the inherent underlying implication of being a judge. You're supposed to be impartial. I have no idea whether or not Judge Walker's alleged gayness had anything to do with his ruling. I do know that his ruling was 136 pages long and that seems a little meticulous for someone who is just flying by the seat of their pants.

But don't worry Tony Perkins and AFA folks. You're right. This isn't over yet. Of course it is going to go to a higher court. And after that court rules (and it won't matter either way because it will be appealed by the losing side) then it will inevitably end up with the Supreme Court. Is that a good idea? I don't know. I think it's poor strategy, personally. I think that the tide is slowly turning in California in regard to gay marriage. I think that there were several factors that contributed to Prop 8 being passed. And the majority of those factors could be eliminated or remedied at another election. Giving the whole thing time might have been a better way to go. This way, even though the judge has ruled Prop 8 to be a no-go, there still isn't gay marriage in California. No, it's going to be put on hold for years. Several years. And when the Supreme Court rules, there is a fifty-fifty chance that they're going to rule in favor of state's rights. And if it comes down to that, then it's done. It becomes a Roe v. Wade situation which will be highly and hotly debated for future years, but will never change.

In conclusion, I expect Judge Walker's ruling to be overturned by one of the higher courts. I base that on the basis of his ruling which is something called "rational basis". He said that there was no "rational basis" for Prop 8. From what I can tell, rational basis is one of the easiest rulings to overturn. Therefore, it will be. It won't be soon, but it will likely happen. And you know what will happen then? I'm going to have to figure out how to soundproof my walled-off compound because people will never stop talking about it ever when that day comes. Maybe I need some sort of a dome. Like in The Truman Show? I'm open to suggestions. All I know is I can't take much more of the incessant debating on either side. I just want it over already.

Court Strikes Down Prop 8 + Bloomberg Defends Cordoba House

What a great piece of news: this afternoon, Judge Vaughn Walker, of the United States District Court of Northern California, issued a careful, thoughful, and earthshaking ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, striking down the heinous Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that two years ago withdrew equal marriage laws in the State of California.  Walker stated in his judgment that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional "under both the due process and equal protection clauses," and ordered "entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement."

The judgment was a tremendous victory for same-sex couples, who had briefly enjoyed equal marriage laws in California after the state Supreme Court ruled, in In re Marriage Cases 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], in May 2008, that California's constitution permitted them.  It was also a victory for the plaintiff's lawyers, Ted Olson, the former Solicitor General under George W. Bush, and David Boies, who had argued on opposing sides in the case representing one of the worst recent rulings by the US Supreme Court, 2000's Bush v. Gore.

California's Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had previously twice vetoed the state legislature's passage of marriage equality bills, hailed today's ruling as an affirmation of "the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves."

You can read the ruling (in .pdf form) here, at GoodAsYou. 

Opponents of Judge Walker's ruling have already filed appeals, and the case will likely go to the US Supreme Court. According to the New York Times's John Schwartz, Walker's ruling will make it more difficult for the US Supreme Court to overturn on appeal, mainly because of "the careful logic and structure of Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s opinion." With the current conservative quintet, which shows little concern for precedent or legal logic, however, the outcome is unclear, but what is clear is that today's decision was a momentous one, and a huge step forward after several recent steps backward (Maine, New Jersey, New York, etc.) on the marriage equality front.

***

So Cordoba House, an Islamic cultural center (and not a "mosque," though that would have been fine in my eyes as well) is slated to be built two blocks north of the World Trade Center Ground Zero site, as the New York City Landmarks Commission voted to allow the demolition of the prior building at 45-47 Park Place in lower Manhattan.  The 13-story cultural center, which will include a prayer room and a 9/11 memorial, will rise, once its developer raises $100 million, despite the spate of hateful, misinformed rhetoric by a number of major conservatives, like current post-children and disgraced Republican politicians Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.

Let us never forget, as we to often do, what comes out of these right-wingers' mouths, how toxic and corrosive it is, and also how this bigotry that they're currently spewing against Muslims and Islam has readily and frequently been applied throughout American history to Black Americans, women, Latinos, Asians and Asian Americans, Jewish people, Roman Catholics, immigrants in general, gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people (cf. above), disabled people, the poor, and on and on. They always find and target scapegoats, with destructive effects, and unless we speak out, we ratify their hate.

As others across the web have pointed out, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of whom I'm hardly a fan, gave a marvelous, moving speech yesterday defending the Muslim cultural center and the history of immigration and the ideas of religious freedom and pluralism in the US. It was for me one of the high points of his public career, and something that far more of our political figures need to do. To the rest of the pols on the Left, center, and yes, those on the right--who believe in the Constitution and aren't gripped by xenophobia and cynicism--who've been silent, step up to the mic!