The verdict delivered by The Supreme Court of the United States yesterday technically had little, if anything to do with the rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples or the right to marry (sorry gender variants and trans friends- we’re still working on our lives not being classified as a disorder, or toward actually existing on forms of identification) . The fuckery at hand is quite simple to understand, once you break it down into simple steps and job descriptions. So, let’s go.
In the justices’ consideration for the ruling was the constitutionality of the direct-elect initiative process that was used to ascend base majority opinion about gay and lesbian marriage into the elite (for good reason) and upper echelon of Constitutionality . In effect, this direct-elect initiative process allowed a majority of Californian citizens to restrict and dictate the reach and enactment of the United States Constitution to its minority citizens. This power is what they were deciding upon, and whether it was a valid method of enacting constitutional law.
And this is why I can’t believe they have come to reject in an overwhelming 6-1 affirmation of the process.
To detach ourselves for a minute from the subject of the Propostion that was passed, regardless of the affected population of ANY direct-elect initiative- this method of enacting constitutional law, when applied to any human being or human issue, in and of itself is a civil rights issue.
Why? Well, because the Supreme Court gave the go ahead for majority rule to be the measure of any minorities constitutional freedoms, rights, and liberties of citizenship and personhood. And well, that’s just plain wrong. It just doesn’t make sense.
Why? For the simple fact of, or what I and so many other people thought, was one of the main principles of the basic SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) job description- is to ensure fair and balanced application of the U.S. Constitution through objective and skillful interpretation thus maintaining the credibility, strength, and virtue of this foundational document of this nation (‘sposedly).
Demonstrated through decades of precedent, the key principle I am focusing on is the Court’s commitment to afford equal protection to minority citizens, from which their full constitutional rights as citizens have historically been withheld and restricted by the mob rule of society / the power-dominant majority, whichever way you want to slice it. The courts job description then includes the provision that a U.S. citizen’s* (however that is currently defined to include/exclude) share of constitutional rights are to be granted with personhood, and not (theoretically) to be detracted for the color of one’s skin, socio-economic class, gender (*rolls eyes*), ability, age, and forth.
Again, whether marriage is a right included in the personal liberties and freedoms the constitution affords with citizenship, whether marriage is a specifically hetero institution, or any other of the key questions that are really at the heart of extending or prohibiting equal marriage rights to everyone constitutionally (just Lesbians and Gays, really. Again, sorry trans and gender variant friends.) was not specifically up for debate yesterday. But the above (the right of the citizen majority to create law governing citizen minority, without the approval of national or state powers), was.
This is the point of failure (or contention) for yesterday’s court ruling that has my mind puttering around all it has learned from constitutional law and case studies. This ruling ‘okays’ the right of the most absurdly small majority of California’s citizens to enact law for the other citizens that fall into this minority.
What the fuck, Supreme Court? This is why you exist, to prevent mob rule, to prevent fundamentalist social opinion from ascending the marble steps and tinkering with law, from adjusting with, or picking and choosing the rights and liberties society’s dissenting minorities are able to enjoy. Your very purpose is to ensure that the biased judgment that taints so many citizens, is as far from the enactment of constitutional law as possible, this principle is at the heart of your structure, organization, and governance. So, what the hell happened?
Was the nation’s cultural climate just not at Gay o’ clock yet? Would this overstep the Obama administration’s paltry position offering of the strewn crumbs of domestic partnership (one day?) ? Were these consequences just too great?
When Proposition 8 initially passed, something remarkable happened. As the unaffected moderates, conservatives snuggled firmly in party platforms, and comfortable heterosexuals drifted off to sleep with the lull of satisfaction from Obama’s win, California erupted. As thousands of others across the country riled in private protest or heart wrenching disbelief, something started. The streets filed, cops cars were mounted, rage rolled. This is the righteous anger that any successful civil rights movement has fed on. Over time, queers have gained a sense of entitlement to the citizenship that corporate demographic courting, and moderate social acceptance had afforded them, yet was shown to be all too unreal. When I first saw the picture of a young man who had bound to the top of a cop car in San Francisco, one hand clutching a sign, the other’s fist thrust sharply toward the night sky, his bold stance, I felt solace and hope. Hope that the soma of assimilation, of unreal acceptance without the tangible rights that would make Queers fully human in law was beginning to wear off.
I know that they may have won the day, but they have not won the war. I know that this is only adding fuel to the fire that is needed to bring this demand of ending Queer dehumanization to fruition.
But this is what I am really afraid of. I know perhaps thousands of powerful conservative forces were salivating over this decision as it was handed down. Just imagine the possibilities of the direct-elect process. If all tinkering with Constitutionality takes is a heap of money to fund fear mongering campaigns and rally influential conservative religious bases, can you just envision the future? Think about a woman’s right to control her own reproduction, gay or lesbian rights to domestic partnership or even just to keep their children, gun control, access to birth control, state funding for social services, sex work, and access to reproductive health services. The future is nigh, and shit, Constitutionality is forever, if not nearly impossible to undo in any other state than California.
