Walker, Civic Ranger
So I didn't realize that Prop 8 had been overturned. If you had asked me about Prop 8 in a general way I would have responded, "Man that's bull$&*#! When are they gonna repeal that nonsense?!" And you would have probably laughed knowingly and said in return, "well, they already did actually." So this morning I did some re-education and read up on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the landmark case that overturned Prop 8.
(Every time I see Arnold Schwarzenegger's name pop up in some political issue I always do a double-take. I wonder if Californians' medical bills have gotten more expensive with all the neck-craning they must be doing on a regular basis. Or maybe they've just gotten used to The Governator as a part of their surreal Californian universe.)
The most interesting things to me were Judge Vaughn Walker's 80 findings of fact that he came up with at the end of the case. For those who don't know, the findings of fact are basically the important points of a trial which the judge holds to be true and restates for future reference. This reference is usually by appellate courts seeking to determine whether or not to uphold the earlier ruling of a judge. Walker made a number of points, one of which currently affects me by slapping me in the brain and annoying the bejeesus out of me. This point may seem simple but you'll see why it so strongly affects me in a moment. The fact that Walker found to be true was that:
19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.
Right, Judge Walker. Thanks a lot for that one. The reason this is so frustrating for me is that currently I am in the middle of writing a rhetorical essay in which I argue against marriage as an appropriate and constitutional institution in the United States, mostly because of its inherent religious nature. The way I argue this is by demonstrating that the First Amendment's clause about the government not respecting any particular form of religion is evidence that marriage (as a religious institution) is actually upheld in various ways by the state and thus is unconstitutional. (And yes, I am still working on wording that in a more effective manner!) The fact that Judge Walker is saying that marriage is not religious and has "always been a civil matter" pretty much blows my argument out of the water. Of course, it only does so if I agree with this finding on his part.
One of my intentions with this argument was to side-step the religious argument against gay marriage completely by substituting the terminology used to describe the specific rights and privileges accorded to married couples with words that weren't inflammatory towards or connotative of any religious group. I understand the argument expressed that says "marriage" itself has very important social and symbolic meanings attached to it, and that the attainment of marriage on the part of gays and lesbians will be a great boost to the community's standing as equal members of society. But I can't seem to shake the coupling of "marriage" with its religious background. And I believe I am not the only one in this; hence why so many religious conservatives are opponents of gay marriage. Because gays are seen as sinful (and in many cases, consequently inferior), the gay population should have no right to a "sacred" and "sanctified" institution. Which leads me back to the side-stepping business.
Now, if religious groups want to exclude me from their marriage ceremonies, fine. I don't care so much about having access to that. But I want my equal gay rights and I want them now, damn it. Fortunately for me, I live in a region of the country (both Oregon and Washington) where gays and lesbians have all the same rights that married couples do, sans the appellation. It's absolutely stupendous! Go Pacific Northwest! Yet there are still many states in which this isn't the case, and gays and lesbians do not have nearly the same rights: Alaska, Colorado, and Maryland are a few examples. Thus it is an ongoing issue.
I want the exact same rights and privileges that accorded to opposite-sex couples for same-sex couples. This may seem basic. That's because it is. And if you want to give it to us via a completely separate institution called a Jim Crow--- Oops. Excuse me, I mean a civil union, that's alright for now. I can live that way for a while. But ultimately I am going to demand that these separate institution be one and the same thing. And if there is a great population of people that are so put off their soup at the idea of gays being allowed to marry each other and raise wholesome American families that they are going to fight tooth and nail for it not to be called marriage then FINE! Be that way! But you're not going to get to call your own opposite-sex institution "marriage" in a legal, linguistic sense. You can call it that inside your home and inside your church. Whatever. But across the board I want it to be called "civil unions" instead. Because I am equal to you. On a human level. I am equal in every way. And you can't tell me who I can or cannot love. Or who I can or cannot spend the rest of my life with. And if you think you can tell me who I can marry, you're wrong there. I'll just remove the verb and force it on you too. Because if you can tell me who I can't marry, than I can do the same right back at you. Because we're equal.
Ranting aside, Walker really screwed up my argument for me. But this particular finding of fact holds a lot of weight for the future of gay marriage in this country. Personally, I am as non-confrontational as can be. Perhaps that's why I took the diplomat's route of attempting to not piss off religious conservatives with "gay marriage" but instead offering a secular alternative "civil unions." Regardless, the things that Judge Walker did in this case that will affect me in the long term are so many and so good. His judicial ruling as well as the way he conducted the trial are a godsend to this movement towards marriage equality. Whether or not we end up qualifying "marriage" with "civil" in front of it is one thing, but I know that the legal teams involved with the case as well as his fair ruling has helped enormously and will surely be looked back on in the future with affirmation.
(Every time I see Arnold Schwarzenegger's name pop up in some political issue I always do a double-take. I wonder if Californians' medical bills have gotten more expensive with all the neck-craning they must be doing on a regular basis. Or maybe they've just gotten used to The Governator as a part of their surreal Californian universe.)
The most interesting things to me were Judge Vaughn Walker's 80 findings of fact that he came up with at the end of the case. For those who don't know, the findings of fact are basically the important points of a trial which the judge holds to be true and restates for future reference. This reference is usually by appellate courts seeking to determine whether or not to uphold the earlier ruling of a judge. Walker made a number of points, one of which currently affects me by slapping me in the brain and annoying the bejeesus out of me. This point may seem simple but you'll see why it so strongly affects me in a moment. The fact that Walker found to be true was that:
19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.
Right, Judge Walker. Thanks a lot for that one. The reason this is so frustrating for me is that currently I am in the middle of writing a rhetorical essay in which I argue against marriage as an appropriate and constitutional institution in the United States, mostly because of its inherent religious nature. The way I argue this is by demonstrating that the First Amendment's clause about the government not respecting any particular form of religion is evidence that marriage (as a religious institution) is actually upheld in various ways by the state and thus is unconstitutional. (And yes, I am still working on wording that in a more effective manner!) The fact that Judge Walker is saying that marriage is not religious and has "always been a civil matter" pretty much blows my argument out of the water. Of course, it only does so if I agree with this finding on his part.
One of my intentions with this argument was to side-step the religious argument against gay marriage completely by substituting the terminology used to describe the specific rights and privileges accorded to married couples with words that weren't inflammatory towards or connotative of any religious group. I understand the argument expressed that says "marriage" itself has very important social and symbolic meanings attached to it, and that the attainment of marriage on the part of gays and lesbians will be a great boost to the community's standing as equal members of society. But I can't seem to shake the coupling of "marriage" with its religious background. And I believe I am not the only one in this; hence why so many religious conservatives are opponents of gay marriage. Because gays are seen as sinful (and in many cases, consequently inferior), the gay population should have no right to a "sacred" and "sanctified" institution. Which leads me back to the side-stepping business.
Now, if religious groups want to exclude me from their marriage ceremonies, fine. I don't care so much about having access to that. But I want my equal gay rights and I want them now, damn it. Fortunately for me, I live in a region of the country (both Oregon and Washington) where gays and lesbians have all the same rights that married couples do, sans the appellation. It's absolutely stupendous! Go Pacific Northwest! Yet there are still many states in which this isn't the case, and gays and lesbians do not have nearly the same rights: Alaska, Colorado, and Maryland are a few examples. Thus it is an ongoing issue.
I want the exact same rights and privileges that accorded to opposite-sex couples for same-sex couples. This may seem basic. That's because it is. And if you want to give it to us via a completely separate institution called a Jim Crow--- Oops. Excuse me, I mean a civil union, that's alright for now. I can live that way for a while. But ultimately I am going to demand that these separate institution be one and the same thing. And if there is a great population of people that are so put off their soup at the idea of gays being allowed to marry each other and raise wholesome American families that they are going to fight tooth and nail for it not to be called marriage then FINE! Be that way! But you're not going to get to call your own opposite-sex institution "marriage" in a legal, linguistic sense. You can call it that inside your home and inside your church. Whatever. But across the board I want it to be called "civil unions" instead. Because I am equal to you. On a human level. I am equal in every way. And you can't tell me who I can or cannot love. Or who I can or cannot spend the rest of my life with. And if you think you can tell me who I can marry, you're wrong there. I'll just remove the verb and force it on you too. Because if you can tell me who I can't marry, than I can do the same right back at you. Because we're equal.
Ranting aside, Walker really screwed up my argument for me. But this particular finding of fact holds a lot of weight for the future of gay marriage in this country. Personally, I am as non-confrontational as can be. Perhaps that's why I took the diplomat's route of attempting to not piss off religious conservatives with "gay marriage" but instead offering a secular alternative "civil unions." Regardless, the things that Judge Walker did in this case that will affect me in the long term are so many and so good. His judicial ruling as well as the way he conducted the trial are a godsend to this movement towards marriage equality. Whether or not we end up qualifying "marriage" with "civil" in front of it is one thing, but I know that the legal teams involved with the case as well as his fair ruling has helped enormously and will surely be looked back on in the future with affirmation.