SFPD <3
So last night, there was a town hall meeting/vigil/gathering at San Francisco City Hall for opponents of Proposition 8 to gather, mourn, regroup, re-energize, etc. Several hundred people wound up attending. I was having a quiet, listless day at home. My big achievement before 6pm was that I killed Dracula in the latest Castlevania game, securing equal rights and freedom from oppression for all citizens of Transylvania... Definitely a slow day.
A text message from a friend who was going ended up motivating me to get off my ass and go, and I'm glad that I did.
There was a lot of energy there, and I think it helped a lot of folks clear up their emotional confusion and feelings of being lost and unsure of how to feel in light of the dizzying heights of Obama's victory and the subsequent disappointment at Prop 8's passage. Speaking for myself, at least, I left feeling energized and positive and genuinely happy for the state of things. Still unsatisfied, obviously, at the recent vote on marriage equality, but incredibly pleased and hopeful at the specific circumstances of its passage.
For one, it passed by an extremely narrow margin. Compare Prop 22's 62% majority just 8 years ago to the 52.5% majority Tuesday. Simple extrapolation from that data suggests we'll cross the 50% threshold of popular opinion in 2 more years. While certainly not a guarantee, it's a reasonable enough claim, and one I hope will hold true.
Secondly, opponents of Prop 8 are in an extremely favorable position in the lawsuits that have already been filed here in California. There is substantial evidence to support the claim that a measure such as Proposition 8 needed to take the form of a constitutional revision, not an amendment (with the legal process for instating a revision requiring legislative action prior to a popular vote). There is substantial evidence to support the claim that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Though it's somewhat strange to think of a constitutional amendment being unconstitutional, it is still a standard that holds -- if the amendment is seen to contradict the spirit of the document on the whole, it cannot stand.
In these cases, opponents of Prop 8 have a powerful precedent in the May Supreme Court decision that sparked the Proposition's drafting in the first place. Not only did this decision find that the ban on same-sex marriage that was on the books at the time was unconstitutional, overturning it and allowing 18,000+ lovely same-sex marriages to take place, the decision also defined homosexuals as a suspect class. That means that in all future court rulings, anti-discrimination cases against homosexuals will have to stand up to strict scrutiny, the most stringent standard of judicial review used in US courts in reviewing federal law. On the topic of strict scrutiny, Wikipedia says:
"To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.
Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subject to this standard are struck down."
In some ways, effecting a reversal of this constitutional amendment may provide a more useful precedent for use in other states' struggles for marriage equality (particularly in those that already have constitutional bans in place) than would have otherwise existed had Prop 8 lost at the polls this week. That's one hell of a silver lining.
After the gathering ended and my friend and I set out to procure some dinner, we heard some chanting behind us. As we walked down Market St., it followed. Realizing that it was inevitably headed to the Castro, which was our dinner destination as well, we joined in. I had never been a part of a political demonstration before, and never really saw myself as the marching-and-chanting type, but again, I feel glad for the experience. What numbered about 40 people leaving Civic Center soon reabsorbed a lot of the other vigil-attendees and steadily grew as it marched. By the time we reached the Castro, we were a group of 2,000.
Perhaps the most emotional moment for me (oddly enough) was when a police car, driving down the street in the other direction (which is to say the side of the road not swarmed by our procession) put on its flashers and made a U-turn. As I saw them approach the front of the group, 30 or so feet ahead of where I was marching, a number of images ran through my mind. Images I'd seen in videos and photographs of 1960's protests broken up by the police. Images of people being taken away in handcuffs, images of me running the hell away because (I'm not too proud to admit) I don't want to spend the night in jail.
The police car turned to face forward and, flashers still on, began to slowly drive ahead at the front of our march.
Now, I can't presume to know what was in their hearts and heads. Maybe they were there with rubber bullets and tear gas at the ready in case we started a riot. Maybe they were there ready to jump in should counter-protesters (of which I saw none) start trouble. Maybe they were just there because their boss told them to be there. Still, I couldn't help but feel that they were participating.
The fact that the police were watching at least impassively over a parade of homosexuals clamoring for equal marriage rights in 2008, not 40 years after the Stonewall riots erupted in response to a police raid, really drove home to me the incredible distance this movement has covered in just four decades. Back then, the police and the mainstream society they represented actively sought out gays in their most hidden and private of sanctuaries, and locked them away. Today, the police facilitate the marching of gays into the realms of the mainstream, and keep them safe.
It's easy to feel exhausted and frustrated in the face of Prop 8's passage, but that evening's experiences showed me in a very immediate way just how much has been accomplished, how many allies we have in this fight, and how very close we are to the equality in the eyes of the law this movement has fought for for 40 years.
A text message from a friend who was going ended up motivating me to get off my ass and go, and I'm glad that I did.
There was a lot of energy there, and I think it helped a lot of folks clear up their emotional confusion and feelings of being lost and unsure of how to feel in light of the dizzying heights of Obama's victory and the subsequent disappointment at Prop 8's passage. Speaking for myself, at least, I left feeling energized and positive and genuinely happy for the state of things. Still unsatisfied, obviously, at the recent vote on marriage equality, but incredibly pleased and hopeful at the specific circumstances of its passage.
For one, it passed by an extremely narrow margin. Compare Prop 22's 62% majority just 8 years ago to the 52.5% majority Tuesday. Simple extrapolation from that data suggests we'll cross the 50% threshold of popular opinion in 2 more years. While certainly not a guarantee, it's a reasonable enough claim, and one I hope will hold true.
Secondly, opponents of Prop 8 are in an extremely favorable position in the lawsuits that have already been filed here in California. There is substantial evidence to support the claim that a measure such as Proposition 8 needed to take the form of a constitutional revision, not an amendment (with the legal process for instating a revision requiring legislative action prior to a popular vote). There is substantial evidence to support the claim that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Though it's somewhat strange to think of a constitutional amendment being unconstitutional, it is still a standard that holds -- if the amendment is seen to contradict the spirit of the document on the whole, it cannot stand.
In these cases, opponents of Prop 8 have a powerful precedent in the May Supreme Court decision that sparked the Proposition's drafting in the first place. Not only did this decision find that the ban on same-sex marriage that was on the books at the time was unconstitutional, overturning it and allowing 18,000+ lovely same-sex marriages to take place, the decision also defined homosexuals as a suspect class. That means that in all future court rulings, anti-discrimination cases against homosexuals will have to stand up to strict scrutiny, the most stringent standard of judicial review used in US courts in reviewing federal law. On the topic of strict scrutiny, Wikipedia says:
"To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.
Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subject to this standard are struck down."
In some ways, effecting a reversal of this constitutional amendment may provide a more useful precedent for use in other states' struggles for marriage equality (particularly in those that already have constitutional bans in place) than would have otherwise existed had Prop 8 lost at the polls this week. That's one hell of a silver lining.
After the gathering ended and my friend and I set out to procure some dinner, we heard some chanting behind us. As we walked down Market St., it followed. Realizing that it was inevitably headed to the Castro, which was our dinner destination as well, we joined in. I had never been a part of a political demonstration before, and never really saw myself as the marching-and-chanting type, but again, I feel glad for the experience. What numbered about 40 people leaving Civic Center soon reabsorbed a lot of the other vigil-attendees and steadily grew as it marched. By the time we reached the Castro, we were a group of 2,000.
Perhaps the most emotional moment for me (oddly enough) was when a police car, driving down the street in the other direction (which is to say the side of the road not swarmed by our procession) put on its flashers and made a U-turn. As I saw them approach the front of the group, 30 or so feet ahead of where I was marching, a number of images ran through my mind. Images I'd seen in videos and photographs of 1960's protests broken up by the police. Images of people being taken away in handcuffs, images of me running the hell away because (I'm not too proud to admit) I don't want to spend the night in jail.
The police car turned to face forward and, flashers still on, began to slowly drive ahead at the front of our march.
Now, I can't presume to know what was in their hearts and heads. Maybe they were there with rubber bullets and tear gas at the ready in case we started a riot. Maybe they were there ready to jump in should counter-protesters (of which I saw none) start trouble. Maybe they were just there because their boss told them to be there. Still, I couldn't help but feel that they were participating.
The fact that the police were watching at least impassively over a parade of homosexuals clamoring for equal marriage rights in 2008, not 40 years after the Stonewall riots erupted in response to a police raid, really drove home to me the incredible distance this movement has covered in just four decades. Back then, the police and the mainstream society they represented actively sought out gays in their most hidden and private of sanctuaries, and locked them away. Today, the police facilitate the marching of gays into the realms of the mainstream, and keep them safe.
It's easy to feel exhausted and frustrated in the face of Prop 8's passage, but that evening's experiences showed me in a very immediate way just how much has been accomplished, how many allies we have in this fight, and how very close we are to the equality in the eyes of the law this movement has fought for for 40 years.