I wrote about the California marriage ruling here. Glenn Greenwald had an important point on Thursday about focusing on the specific state situation -- the state's domestic partnership law plus its legislature/governor supporting same sex marriage, for instance, makes it different from let's say New York (no state-wide domestic partnership law). One result of small steps like Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia aside, is that even if in the long term same sex marriage will be the rule, it will be the result of an extended process.
[The ruling underlined the various aspects of it, as with Loving v. Virginia, viewing it both as a right to marry case and a matter of equality, holding sexual orientation should be supplied strict scrutiny. The developments in marriage alone underlines the nature of the process here.]
I think we are talking about the rights of all Americans here, but there is a value in such a process. The road ahead is suggested, again h/t GG, by a column responding to my original choice for President endorsing Obama beginning thusly:
Well, at least they didn't kiss.
I was bracing myself for the lip lock Wednesday when John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama."
Yeah. This underlines that those who argue that this is largely about gender/sex stereotypes (the court relied on sexual orientation and spoke of the "opposite" sex) have a point. Surely, sexual orientation is a central aspect of one's person, and can and should be treated separately in various respects than gender and/or sex. But, proper sex and gender roles definitely play a role here. Ditto biblical prohibitions against same sex relations overall. And, the point holds even if wish to arbitrarily draw certain lines. There are degrees of bad, e.g., allowing same sex intimacy and not marriage.
I wrote some over at Balkanization as well on this issue, including in response to an argument that heterosexuals (it bears noting that some man/woman marriages have at least one homosexual/bisexual person involved, so the term is inexact here) should think about not marrying in states that ban same sex marriage. Was this idea used in the days when states banned interracial marriages? Anyway, I think a better path might be to refuse to "marry" in a civil ceremony,* but to partake in the domestic partnership / civil union alternatives available in many states.
This might suggest the true arbitrary line drawing going on here and supply some state benefits too. Anyway, the above mentioned link and comments here and here provide further input by me on this matter. Enough for now. Oh, and the recent Vito shenanigans underlines those concerned about threats to marriage really need to get their priorities in order.
---
* Dan Savage, who adopted a child with his partner, and wrote a book about the experience noted after courts of his own state and my own rejected challenges to different sex only marriage laws:
A perverse cruelty characterizes both decisions. The courts ruled, essentially, that making my child’s life less secure somehow makes the life of a child with straight parents more secure. Both courts found that making heterosexual couples stable requires keeping homosexual couples vulnerable. And the courts seemed to agree that heterosexuals can hardly be bothered to have children at all — or once they’ve had them, can hardly be bothered to care for them — unless marriage rights are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. And the religious right accuses gays and lesbians of seeking “special rights.” ...
So I’m confident that one day my son will live in a country that allows his parents to marry. His parents are already married, as far as he’s concerned, as my boyfriend and I tied the knot in Canada more than a year and a half ago. We recognize, even if the courts do not, that it’s in his best interest for us to be married.
One might add many also are married in private ceremonies, including religious ones. They are "married" in ways "as far as" many are concerned.