Hi guys. Does anyone even read these posts anymore?
Anyway, I wrote this opinion piece for the newspaper I work for, but the editor decided he didn't want to run it. I think they're under the impression that being right-wing will sell more papers :)
Anyway, if anyone's still out there, here's my piece on the Supreme Court's non-decision Monday.
With one stunning non-decision decision Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court radically changed the landscape of marriage in America.
That's right. Gay couples in Texas who have decided it's time to make it official now need only to cross the border into the progressive state of -- Oklahoma!?!? -- to tie the knot.
The nation's high court, by declining to hear appeals of pro-gay marriage rulings from three circuit courts, immediately extended same-sex marriage rights to five more states, and six more states from the same circuits as the rulings that the court effectively upheld. The District of Columbia and the 19 states that allowed same-sex marriage before Monday have a markedly different profile from many of the 11 that are joining them. Those states were all decidedly "Blue," or "liberal" politically, and same-sex marriage was split pretty much along the same Red State-Blue State, liberal-conservative lines that have sadly come to define American politics.
No longer. The five states added Monday -- Oklahoma, Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana -- and the other six -- North and South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Wyoming and Kansas -- include some of the Reddest and most conservative states in the nation. The first five states began issuing licenses immediately, and Colorado clerks got the go-ahead Tuesday.
In effect, Monday's "decision" by the Supreme Court appears to have all but settled the same-sex marriage issue in America.
The gay marriage issue has swept across the U.S. with amazing speed. It really didn't even enter the public consciousness until 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in an incredibly brave and barrier-busting decision, ruled that that state's ban against same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. It created a firestorm in 2004, with residents of 11 states voting to ban gay marriage and the issue playing a role in John Kerry's defeat to George W. Bush in the presidential election. After that came a string of electoral losses for same-sex marriage.
But momentum on the issue changed for good in 2012. As President Barack Obama was re-elected, voters in three states -- Maine, Maryland and Washington -- approved same-sex marriage laws, and in a fourth, Minnesota, defeated a gay-marriage ban. Up to that point, only six states had allowed gay marriage. That number quickly jumped. And after the Supreme Court struck down key elements of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in Windsor vs. United States on June 26 last year, kept rising until it reached 19 when the governor of Pennsylvania decided against appealing a court defeat of that state's ban.
All but one federal court decision on same-sex marriage has gone against state bans since the Supreme Court's DOMA decision. On Monday, the high court effectively said those courts got it right and it doesn't see the need to expound on the issue.
Now same-sex marriage appears poised to become the law of the land.
Oh, there are still some potential stumbling blocks.
The court could decide to accept a case later on this term, but if that were the case, the decision to let rulings for 11 states stand now would seem strange.
Another circuit court could rule in favor of a same-sex marriage ban. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, for example, could decide to attempt to slow down the gay marriage express. Before the court are two cases involving conflicting rulings. A Louisiana judge went against the grain and upheld that state's marriage ban, while a Texas judge struck down ours. A ruling in favor of Louisiana could force the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue by presenting a conflicting appeals court decision, while a victory for the Texas ruling could keep the ball rolling. The 5th Circuit has traditionally been one of the most conservative circuit courts. But the Supreme Court, twice now, with the DOMA ruling and now Monday's, appears to have sent a pretty clear message about same-sex marriage. And lower courts usually prefer not to have their rulings overturned. In other words, the 5th Circuit would be making an in-your-face statement by OKing the Louisiana ruling.
It's also possible the Supreme Court could decide to address the issue down the road. Perhaps a Republican is elected president in 2016, and a member of the court's liberal bloc, such as 81-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, steps down. A GOP appointee could push the Supreme Court further to the right and make Anthony Kennedy's decisive pro-gay vote immaterial.
But there are some realities that make this scenario unlikely. First, gay marriage isn't abortion. States that have allowed it have found that once they did so, the "heat" surrounding the issue dissipates quickly. There's a simple reason for that. Same-sex marriage doesn't affect heterosexual marriage. So you've got some gay people getting married, but the issue doesn't affect a state's straight residents. Nothing earth-shaking happens, and life goes on. Most residents realize that it was the fair thing to do and really, what was all the fuss about? Unless you work in a wedding-related business or you're invited to a gay wedding, you don't even notice.
Conversely, the abortion issue may not fade away for a century or more. The heat surrounding it remains blazing hot, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
And after you've been allowing gay marriages for several years, you just stop? As we've seen in states that allowed marriages just for a short time, that creates a tangled legal web. After years, it would be much worse.
The politics of the issue may now work in its favor. The Supreme Court is a Republican court, and many leading GOP politicians consider gay marriage a dead issue. Polls now show more than 50 percent of Americans favoring gay marriage, and the issue hurts the GOP with independent and younger voters by making the party look intolerant. A Republican court might well decide that the party is better off just leaving well enough alone.
Meanwhile, back here in Texas, the wait continues. I find it a little embarrassing that gay people here are even coming in behind our brethren in Oklahoma and Utah, but at least the success in those states lets us know our wait shouldn't be much longer.
I've been a Texan my entire life and without a doubt the lowest moment of my life as a gay man and as a Texan came on the night of Nov. 8, 2005, when Texas voters provided a 76 to 24 percent slap in the face. Sure, I knew the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was going to pass, but I was not prepared for the thoroughness of Texans' rejection of their gay fellow residents. Gov. Rick Perry, in signing the bill to put the hateful amendment on the ballot in June 2005, even went so far as to tell gay Texans, in so many words, that if we didn't like it, we could just leave.
Texas played a key part in the evolution of gay rights in this country, thanks to the Supreme Court's Lawrence vs. Texas ruling in 2003. That ruling struck down the state's dreaded sodomy law, Section 21.06 of the state criminal code, which harassed gay Texans for decades. (Though in a bit of petty bitterness, the Legislature refuses to remove it from the code, just noting that it was invalidated.) Even more importantly, the Supreme Court's Lawrence ruling laid the groundwork for equal treatment of America's gay citizens, and has helped bring us to where we are today.
A significant step closer to being a nation that, in theory if not in reality, recognizes the equality of all its citizens.
I find most of them interesting and in some cases educational.
An overall ruling might be preferable, but if all the circuit courts keep agreeing, we can get there this way, too. It might not be as satisfying, but it would work.
As for my paper ... lost cause. If I were younger I'd be out of here. But at 58, finding a job is difficult, to say the least.
It's interesting the way it's been working though the courts. Today's development with the stay given by Justice Kennedy to maintain the ban on marriage in Nevada and Idaho is interesting. Kennedy has given the proponents of same-sex marriage until Thursday to file its briefs. I'm thinking that rather than a set back, Kennedy wants to make an overall ruling and this is away he can force the Robert's Court to made a decision? I hope.
Just arrived back home this AM from two weeks in the FW area (Springtown, Azle, Lake Worth), and the number of churches in that small area is pretty amazing. Listening to the radio there, chatting with the locals, it's not a surprise that many of them are perfectly content with the status quo. I agree with Pirrip--stay there and keep up the fight, and keep taking your ideas to your editor.