3D Animated Flags--By 3DFlags.com
I am an American and a patriot. I love my country and its Constitution. Especially its Constitution. Our Constitution is precious and miraculous, in my view--not perfect, but as near as I ever hope to see.
Personally, I believe that the provisions of both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution proscribe and should proscribe the discrimination against gays and lesbians in many areas, including the refusal allow them to legally marry. And I believe that one day in the not-too-distant future, this kind of discrimination will be found unlawful and unconstitutional. Like segregation, a scant 50 years ago, this discrimination will be struck down, and 50 years from now people will look back on this debate and be embarrassed for the bigots that perpetuated the discrimination and argued to continue it in perpetuity. Our descendants will be amazed that so many refused to recognize the obvious wrong being committed. Just as we are amazed and outraged today when Trent Lott publicly admires segregationist presidential candidates of 50 years ago.
And when the History Channel does a show in 2054 about the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, it will have to mention Gavin Newsom and San Francisco. It will have to mention today's decision by the California Supreme Court to invalidate the marriage licenses issued in SF this year. I can only hope that the discussion of that decision will be a brief footnote on the way to discussing the decision by that court or a higher one that invalidates Prop. 22 as unconstitutional and, well, just plain mean.
I thought and still think that Gavin Newsom is so brave for taking a stand on behalf of equal rights for all, and for speaking out about the injustice that prevents gays and lesbians from marrying. I hope that someday he is recognized for helping to lead the movement that ends that injustice.
But I also think that, however painful it is to face the thousands of happily married families now torn apart by the court's decision today, and however much I wish that the court had taken the opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of Prop 22 and its ilk, the California Supreme Court did what it had to do.
We are, as the court quotes (and corrects) John Adams, "'a nation of laws, not men' (or women)." We cannot allow a local authority to refuse to enforce assault weapons bans, or sexual predator registration, or access to family planning and abortion services, or desegregation orders simply because that official is ideologically opposed to those laws and believes them to be unconstitutional. If the court had ruled otherwise, you can be sure that conservative local officials would start tomorrow flouting the laws with which they disagreed. Soon, the laws crafted by legislatures and interpreted by courts and implemented by the executive would mean nothing in the face of arbitrary local actions.
Our Constitutional democracy depends on upholding the law as it stands today, and following the procedures in place to change that law when it needs changing. A lasting victory for gay and lesbian marriages can only come when the law itself is followed and respected. It takes longer and it hurts more, but in the end, when discrimination against gays and lesbians is finally ruled unconstitutional, there will be no precedent for local mayors and other officials to stand on to deny those hard-won rights.
I'm fighting on.
PS--I know, someone is going to say: this is a knitting blog; please leave the politics out. Well, this is MY knitting blog, and sometimes when I'm knitting I think about more important things, like whether my lesbian friend will be able to keep her child if her partner (the birth mother) dies. You know, little things like that.
PPS--Besides, it's my blog. I warned you there would be invective.