CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
April 21, 2009 – 12:04 a.m.
Golden State’s Prop 8: A Cultural Conundrum
By Liriel Higa, CQ Guest Columnist
Here in Santa Monica, Calif., it’s difficult to walk more than a block without seeing someone carrying a yoga mat or a reusable grocery bag. It’s easy to see why, when I lived in Washington, D.C., the prevailing opinion of the “left coast” was that it was full of Botoxed, Prius-driving vegetarians.
There are plenty of people here who proudly wear the liberal or progressive label, but the political scene is more complex than that. Even on the hottest political topic of the moment — gay marriage — you can find in the same library courtyard on the same Saturday afternoon Nate Wyne and Robin Berkovitz.
Wyne, a Mormon, and Berkovitz, a married lesbian with an adopted daughter, were participants in the Living Library Project, and, for a day, allowed themselves to be checked out as “books” in half-hour increments. The temporarily expanded Santa Monica Library “collection” also included an animal rights activist, police detective, little person, fat activist, self-professed Japan-aphile teenager, feminist, current and former homeless people and (this being Santa Monica) a raw foodist.
Conversations with both quickly turned to Proposition 8, the state ballot initiative voters passed last November to bar gay marriage. Half a year earlier the state Supreme Court had ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Mormons were major donors for ads supporting the initiative, and as such, the pro-gay marriage contingent directed much of their ire at them after the election. Wyne experienced the backlash firsthand.
When he went to the temple after the election, he said he encountered a huge protest where, he said, people were chanting “burn, baby, burn” and “go back to Utah.”
“In my personal opinion, the biggest hypocrisy of the show was them saying, ‘Don’t worry, we’re not going to touch religious freedom, but if we lose’ ... ” Wyne said. “I’m sure there are other sides to the story but that’s mine.”
Berkovitz, who was married twice to her wife, once by her rabbi in 2001 and again last October to make it legal, had another perspective. “I think there’s something really offensive being a religious institution [that gets] the nonprofit status and all the protections that go with it to use their pulpit to raise all the money they raised,” she said. “So that personally offends me.”
The California Supreme Court will rule on the validity of Prop 8 by early June. One possible outcome is for the court to uphold the validity of the initiative but also allow the 18,000 same-sex marriages, such as Berkovitz’s, that happened before the Nov. 4 election to remain legal.
Regardless of the outcome, the battle is sure to continue in the courtroom or at the ballot box. Prop 8 narrowly passed, 52 percent to 48 percent, and both sides remain passionate about the issue. Opponents of same-sex marriages have threatened to recall justices who vote to overturn Prop 8. And if the court rules the initiative is legal, voters may well face an initiative to undo the ban in 2010.
It’s easy to dismiss California as a liberal outlier.
When I told my friends back East that the library was going to let me check out people, their response was, “That’s so California.” I could see their eyes roll through the Google chat.
But even though Santa Monica Library launched the project in the United States last fall, other states have followed, and Texas, home to a vocal minority that seems eager to bolt from the Union, is even scheduled to host an event.
Talking heads prognosticated that passage of Prop 8 would be a crippling blow to the country’s gay marriage movement, since California is typically at the forefront of social change. It became the first state in 1996 to legalize marijuana for medicinal use and it is now legal in 13 states.
But the Iowa Supreme Court and Vermont Legislature missed or ignored the memo that California is supposed to be the liberal bellwether state. Earlier this month they joined Massachusetts and Connecticut as the third and fourth states to legalize gay marriage.
To those who say that California is losing its edge as the nation’s cultural signpost, just remember: It was famed Berkeley restaurateur Alice Waters who promoted the idea of an organic White House garden.
Liriel Higa is a former Congressional Quarterly reporter who now lives and writes on the West Coast.
Comments
So 52% to 48% is a narrow victory concerning Prop 8 and Obama's victory of the same margin is a landside? Right. Also, keep in mind that only one state (Vermont) has voted through it's legislature to enact Gay marraige. The others were 3-5 silly people in black robes, ruling by judicial fiat. 38 States have outlawed Gay marriage, thirty of those have codified it in their Constitutions. Seems to me the consensus of Americans opinion is against Gay marriage.
America is not a country where we make laws solely based on the tyranny of the majority as many conservatives seem to want. Remember, interracial marriage was illegal and a large majority of Americans were opposed to it not too long ago. Gay marriage is simply the next step of the civil rights struggle that is constantly ongoing in America, and I'm willing to bet that within 20 years (if not sooner) it will be legal everywhere in the US. If you ever look at polls that breakdown people's views on gay marriage by age it's already started- the majority of those under 30 support full marriage equality even now. It is a very well defined trend that each generation gets more socially liberal, so in time whether the conservatives want it or not full equality will be had by gays and lesbians.
aj arizona, you need to check your data. Prop 8 passed by about 500,000 votes - which by California standards is not very much - while Obama won about 63% of the vote, the biggest margin in Presidential election history (not even CA natives Nixon and Reagan pulled off such victories). So there was a discrepancy between Obama's victory and Prop 8's passage. SciGuy is right, although I'd like to amend it - most young people are very socially libertarian. We grew up in an internet age and most don't like government interference in their private lives on the basis that it's "for their own good." This is not a passing fad, but rather a consistent belief held by voters under 30. It also explains why younger voters are more supportive of social security privatization and aren't really supportive of handgun regulations. Gay marriage will come - based on aggregate trends, there could be a plurality of support by as early as next decade.
As a heterosexual, I am not allowed to file for a domestic partnership with my Sweetie until we are 65 or older... or gay (at any age). That's discrimination. The state should step-out of the marriage business altogether and simply offer domestic partnerships to all who desire them. And then any church could decide who they would want to sanctify marriages for.
"America is not a country where we make laws solely based on the tyranny of the majority" Right! it is a country where we make laws based upon Judeo-Christian values & 6,000 years of recorded Human history where marriage has been consistently defined as between a man and a woman. As to interracial marriage that is about race not gender. The color of a spouse is irrelevant the gender isn't. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, children are best served by being raised by a Mother & Father. Remember this, People get older not younger. The under 30 yr old gets older, gets married, has kids and becomes more conservative in the process. What's the old saying, If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain. - Winston Churchill
If gays and lesbians were urging elimination of all limitations on who could be married, I might agree this is another step in the civil rights movement. However, gays and lesbians are not making that argument. While they want the definition of marriage expanded to include their relationships, they specifically have argued against, say, two spinster sisters "getting married" even tho those sisters have all the same arguments about hospital visits and wills, etc. Gays and lesbians are trying to win public acceptance by having their "marriages" recognized as the same as heterosexual messages. If and when they achieve their goal on marriage, they will find they have generated more bitterness and resentment than acceptance, especially if they continue to pursue the issue in the courts rather than the public square.
Gerry, while I am familiar with the Churchill quote, I believe you are misinterpreting it. The key to understanding it is realizing that what "liberal" means changes with time. 40 years ago, when the Supreme Court removed the last barriers to interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, those citizens that were proponents of it were considered to be socially liberal. Today, the vast majority of Americans are in favor of allowing interracial marriage and I would argue it is a view held by both liberals and conservatives. Today, many liberals are pushing for the legalization of gay marriage. In 40 years, the majority of Americans will support gay marriage and the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" will have changed regarding social issues. Polls don't lie, and voting trends regarding civil rights issues don't either. Don't believe me if you feel like you want to stay in your cocoon, but I'm willing to bet you wouldn't believe that gay marriage would be legal in almost 10% of the US by 2009. Also, please link me a peer-reviewed scientific study that shows that children are best raised by heterosexual couples. In the absence of those studies, your claim lacks foundation and is easily dismissed.
The fact that the majority of Americans don't consider the color of a spouse to be socially significant doesn't mean they will think the gender of a spouse to be insignificant. Skin color differences are meaningless, yes? Gender differences aren't. Which is why I am surprised you are asking about peer-reviewed scientific studies that show that children are best raised by heterosexual couples. You should know that the whole issue is hotly debated right now and it will be awhile before the smoke clears and common sense is once again affirmed. Polls don't lie, please! What's that old saying, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Same sex marriage proponents may ultimately be undone by their limited success for in any state where there is currently same sex marriage if education curriculum promotes it to children voting trends will quickly reverse because in these debates children are the ignored minority.
Minnesotan: you need to get your facts right. Obama won 63% of the electoral votes, but he only won 53% of the popular vote (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/).
I agree with NorCalifornian. Government has no business in marriage.
NorCalifornian, As a gay man who was blessed with being able to marry my husband last year, I feel for you and agree that the current domestic partnership laws are discriminatory against heterosexual couples. I would fight for your right to enter such a contract. However for me and my husband, we wanted marriage and I would hope that you would support my right to enter that civil instution as well. Government doesn't need to stop granting marriage licenses, it only needs to grant equal access to all civil contracts it provides.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: