Obama's grief

From Andrew Sullivan.....

Madelyn Payne Dunham RIP

Obama was so right to make sure he spent time with her before she passed on. But what an emotional blow on election eve for the candidate from Illinois. He has survived this campaign with remarkable emotional maturity and self-control. I just wish this didn't have to add to it. None of his parents will witness tomorrow. But somewhere my faith teaches me: they know already. Maybe Toot couldn't wait for the actual results. Maybe she's now a few steps ahead even of Chuck Todd. May she rest in peace. She did good.

California - it will be tight

Now the Supreme Court in California has confirmed that proposition 8 will be on November's ballot (with the intention of reversing same sex marriage) two opinion polls show that the No vote has a small lead.

Latest figures show a lead of 51-42%.

This is good but incredibly narrow and anything could happen between now and then. Still a good initial poll finding that (hopefully) will encourage the No campaigners.

Gays and guns?

I have often felt tempted to drop a line about this curious US case, where the US Supreme Court has overruled a strict handgun bad in Washington DC.

The constitutionality of gun control in the US is of course fascinating and long running and slightly odd for us Europeans where a) we have by long tradition believed in the State's monopoly of violence (a la Weber) and b) we are struggling with both gun and knife crime - as is the US for that matter.

Well the whole gun control agenda has just hit the buffers big time in the Heller ruling issued 5 years to the day to Lawrence v Texas.

Various right wing gay groups are in favour of the right for gay people to carry arms:

• The Constitution allows people to bear arms and form a militia - this can't be the regular army as gay people are - for the time being - excluded from it (an argument enough in itself to send the right on the Court rushing to support the individual right to bear arms)
• Gay people are at much higher risk from lethal and near lethal 'gay bashing' - carrying arms means they will be able to defend themselves effectively (right to life) and if more gay people carry guns - and make that known - this will make people think twice before making a physical attack.
• Groups such as Pink Pistols (who made a submission to the Supreme Court on these lines) encourage gay people to get trained in the use of fire arms and carry them to the extent the law allows.

So they you have it. You might be safer with a gun but of course the risk of 'gun inflation' (we probably have that anyway) and cases of both accidental use and people running amok and killing many people (as in recent school cases - e.g. Columbine). Most commentators think carrying a gun (or a knife for that matter) actually makes you less safe - mainly because such weapons are not easy to use effectively in self defence and make you more likely to stay and fight instead of getting out of the situation.

There are two further cross cutting issues in this:

• The ability of States to have a certain latitude to define laws in their own remit (states' rights) - in this case the Court over rules States' own legislation (under some circumstances - not all gun laws are invalidated).
  
• Different ways of construing the Constitution (living document versus the original document as intended at the time) there is in this case a literal words of the 2nd Amendment, although, in this case it is the words of the Amendment and their import that is the key issue, without much constitutional precedent to weigh up (in this case Heller is now the constitutional precedent in this matter).

The mere fact that there are people wanting recourse to violent means to protect themselves from physical violence means there is a huge need for our laws to eradicate homophobia and transphobia and for police forces and local government to work towards effective prevention of violent hate crime.

I am sure this is the better way to address the problem - but this is maybe an example of how far apart are the US and Europe in such matters.

A nice rejoinder to the case (and critique of the conservative justices' judicial activism - usually pinned onto pro-gay rulings of any kind by the right) in E.J. Dionne's piece in the Washington Post:

I also hope this decision opens people's eyes to the fact that judicial activism is now a habit of the right, not the left, and that "originalism" is too often a sophisticated cover for ideological decision-making by conservative judges.

Jewish same sex wedding ceremony on the streets of California

Some nice footage on BBC website.

Reminds me a bit of the scenes accompanying the introduction of Civil Partnerships in the UK - seems we are still arguing about that.

Marriage now legal

The California Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage has now entered into force and several couples (some of whom have already been together for years - or decades in some cases) are planning to marry immediately at State offices that are staying open for the occasion.

Andrew Sullivan on same sex marriage in 1997

Ahead of the introduction (maybe only for a few months) of same sex marriage in California and in the midst of all of the (somewhat overblown in my view) broohaha about the so called Anglican gay wedding I am putting up a weblink to a talk by Andrew Sullivan on same sex marriage from 11 years ago.

It's well worth watching - and can be found here - the Daily Dish.

Homosexuality in America

According to this poll 'homosexual relations' come between abortion and doctor assisted suicide, with the same percentage finding "homosexual relations" acceptable and wrong (48% for both sides) irrespective of their view of whether it should be legal or not.

Comment on California

Relying on Andrew Sullivan for much current commentary on this debate.

This item links to comments about supposed judicial hast (over reach?) in the Court's ruling but notes just how out of step California was 60 years ago in ruling racially mixed marriages could not be outlawed (even when they then were by all states up to that point and a ruling by the US Supreme Court was around 20 years into the future).

The key to California's decision in both 1948 and 2008 was to look more closely at an issue that had often before been rejected out of hand. In 1948 the court said that yes "separate but equal" was the law but looked at from the point of view of the individual there was no equal substitute for one's chosen marital partner. In 2008 they said yes the "right to marry" had been stated before with the idea of a marriage being the union of a man and a woman, but if one looked at the reasons for why marriage was a fundamental right it was clear that they would apply equally to unions of the same sex. In both cases it was the careful examination that led to what I believe was the correct decision on the law. Even if you believe one or both cases were incorrectly decided, though, when it comes down to fundamental rights and minorities that have not always been treated justly, it is no virtue for a court to ignore the issue in deference to the wishes of a majority. They should strive instead strive in good faith to apply the constitution regardless of the popularity of the decision. Those that disagree should argue on against the reasoning used and the legal principles applied and not rely on overstated cries of judicial activism.

Same sex marriage in California

Very significant news from California that that the Supreme Court has declared that same sex marriage is required by the Californian State Constitution by a 4-3 ruling.

Of particular interest is the application by the majority of Justices of the principle of 'strict scrutiny', not usually used in cases of sexual orientation.

So this is a massive landmark case, following the adoption by the Legislature (Senate and House) of a marriage bill (though not passed into the law by Schwarzenegger, the Governor - who has though said he will abide by the ruling and not support a proposed constitutional amendment with the intention of reversing this ruling.

The ruling makes California the second US State (alongside Masachussets) which will have same sex marriage along side countries such as Canada, South Africa, Belgium, Netherlands and Spain.

I gather the ruling will come into effect in 30 days time. It will however be subject to review by the electorate in November when a constitutional amendment is voted on.

When the Campaign starts it will of course not be the first jurisdiction to have done this (whether by legislative or judicial means or a combination of both) . It will be supported by the view of the elected legislature (Schwarzenegger has said he would sign into law if allowed to under the Constitution), the support of the Republican Governor.

If the vote is successful it will have had the support of elected Legislature, Judiciary and General Electorate in a referendum and will therefore be of the highest kind of support and legitimacy possible, rendering it more difficult for the US to enact a Constitutional Amendment whose rationale is to protect voters from so called 'activist judges'.

Of course the vote could go the other way. That is always an option and one would have very big consequences in other US States, though again rendering rather otiose the proposed US Constitutional Amendment, given the ability of voters in the States to amend State constitutions by referendum.

Equality California
BBC
365gay
Pink News
Guardian
Washington Post
Andrew Sullivan
New York Times
Human Rights Campaign

The ruling (172 pages including dissents)

Having been voted by the Legislature, having been found in favour by the Supreme Court, following Massachusetts and Canada it lies entirely in the hands of the voters in California this November.

I do not personally think that this will have quite so much of a negative impact on other States that some fear. Most of the most 'promising' (from a right wing point of view) have already enacted such bans, the more States they go after as same sex marriage becomes more widely practised in the US and its neighbour Canada the greater the chance that it will fail in the popular vote in one or more States. And where such a ban is passed it can only be passed once, limiting its political pay off.

P.S. The Campaign

Now California (and US) lgbt folk are in THE campaign of their lives. If the initiative is defeated 10% of the US will be able to marry equitably and many of those in other states may be able to marry there - with differing levels of recognition.

The ones to watch will be:

• fundraising - the religious right will pour all of their resources into this fight - they are right to as if they fail here they fail utterly and have nowhere else to go. If you're rich and LGBT and live in America donate and make a difference. Otherwise the campaign will be massively underspent.
• the unions - if memory serves most of them have robust pro equality positions - they can make a real difference. See also link to Pride at Work.
• faith groups - really important to mobilise supportive faith voices in order to win the fight
• the Democratic Party - California usually votes Dem in any case (and if they don't the election's lost anyway) so using the Democratic Party to mobilise a 'No' vote will be crucial. See link to California Democratic Party Platform and also the immediate and supportive reaction of Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives from San Fansisco.

.

The view from the US ....

Interesting quote about evangelicals lying with statistics which seems very relevant to the UK scene from Pam's House Blend US LGBT blog (always steamin!):

The real question is not whether evangelicals can clean up their statistical act. The deeper question is whether American evangelicals can learn to live without the alarmism that is so comfortably familiar to them. Evangelicals, by my observation, thrive on fear of impending catastrophe, accelerating decay, apocalyptic crises that demand immediate action (and maybe money). All of that can be energizing and mobilizing. The problem is, it also often distorts, misrepresents, or falsifies what actually happens to be true about reality. And to sacrifice what is actually true for the sake of immediate attention and action is plain wrong. It should be redefined as a very un-evangelical thing to do.

Too true, too true. And of course the US know a thing or two about facing up to an energised religious right we are starting to see in the UK.

Massachusetts same sex marriage decision

News today (also here) that the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention (comprising both Houses of the Legislature) have voted on the constitutional amendment to prevent same sex marriage.

Currently Massachusetts is the only US state to allow same sex couples to marry, following a Court decision (4-3) in 2003.

Since then there have been various and numerous attempts to reverse this decision and a heck of a lot of arguing in Court - the latest because instead of voting on the merits of the amendment the legislature voted to recess its constitutional convention without voting (the measure only needs a 25% vote of each chamber to progress as it is a referendum process).

After cristicism from the State Supreme Court, they voted yesterday 131 against and 62 in favour, thus allowing the measure to progress, provided that they get enough votes next time round (2007). The amendment would then be put to the vote in the election in 2008 - should add a bit of zing to the presidential elections.

Currently the polls indicate a majority against this amendment and 2/3 of the legislators voted against it as well as being opposed by the newly elected Governor, so it's all to play for.

If defeated this would considerably up-end the rhetoric of the religious right (which underpins attempts to get a Federal Marriage Amendment - probably doomed in any case, given the Republican losses in Congress) on 'activist judges', given that already in Massachusetts the legislature has a solid majority in favour of marriage equality.

For more coverage see GLAD , MassEquality , Wikipedia