Share

Where's the Equal Justice for Gays?

by: Joan Vennochi  |  The Boston Globe

photo
As President Obama attended a fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton, activists rallied outside the hotel, speaking out against Proposition 8 and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. (Photo: Reuters)

    President Obama had much to say about the glass ceiling he is smashing on behalf of Hispanics and nothing to say about the glass ceiling the California Supreme Court is reimposing on gays.

    On Tuesday, Obama announced that he would nominate Sonia Sotomayor, a federal appeals judge in New York, to the Supreme Court. In nominating the daughter of Puerto Rican parents to become the nation's first Hispanic justice, Obama said that when she "ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court of the land, America will have taken another important step towards realizing the idea that is etched above its entrance: equal justice under the law."

    Those are stirring words, and ironic ones, too, given the day's other momentous judicial news: The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, last year's ballot initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage.

 

Lt. Dan Choi speaks out against the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy
at a protest at Obama's hotel in Los Angeles on Wednesday night.

    Asked about that ruling, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he had not spoken to Obama about it, and added, "The issues involved are ones that, ah, you know where the president stands."

    On gay rights, as with other controversial issues, Obama stands where it's politically smart to stand. He finds the political sweet spot that placates the left and doesn't alienate the middle.

    Obama supports civil unions, not same-sex marriage, a position he embraced as a national candidate. Earlier this year, the political website politico.com produced a questionnaire Obama filled out in 1996 for a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper. "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," Obama wrote in a typed, signed statement.

    In what is becoming a pattern, his thinking evolved to a less-liberal stance. As president, Obama has been less than eager to take up a campaign pledge to grant equal federal rights for gay couples; or to reconsider the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy. As Andrew Sullivan, a prominent blogger and gay rights advocate, recently wrote: "I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away."

    A year ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples enjoyed the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples. The decision led to Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and eventually won 52 percent of the vote last November. With this week's ruling, gay marriage advocates pledge to put the issue before California voters yet again.

    In Massachusetts, the first state to recognize a legal right to same-sex marriage and the state that stopped a gay marriage referendum from going to the ballot, there is also disappointment with Obama.

    Representative Carl M. Sciortino Jr. of Somerville, who went to California to work against Proposition 8, said, "What was frustrating at the time was that Candidate Obama never showed up in California and said, 'That's an outrage ... it goes too far.'" Now, said Sciortino, "I do hope for and want to see our national leaders being more aggressive in saying discrimination is wrong and the Constitution should not be used to discriminate."

    By upholding Proposition 8 in a 6-to-1 ruling, the California Supreme Court did Obama a favor - for now. Just as Obama was nominating a Supreme Court nominee whose detractors are trying to frame her as a liberal activist, California's highest court declared 'that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

    The Wall Street Journal editorial board celebrated "that sigh of judicial restraint." Imagine if a majority of justices instead shared the view of the lone dissenter, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, who wrote, "The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry ... it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."

    That's a stirring call for equal justice under the law - what Obama said he believes in with Sotomayor at his side.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
  

»


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

My thanks goes out to the

My thanks goes out to the author of this article. The ruling-- which validates the use of a ballot measure to strip away equal protection for minorities in the state constitution, putting it in conflict with itself, should deeply concern all Californians. Sadly, it appears that many of my fellow citizens are content to leave the outrage to the affected group. EVERY Californian should be horrified by the precedent set here for legalized religious persecution. Equality under the law does not allow for politically convenient asterisks, as Obama's team seems to think will placate marriage equality advocates. Support from the LBGT communities is taken for granted as Democrats (perhaps rightly) assume that gays have no where else to go in our tightly controlled two party electoral system. To the many people of the central valley that voted to strip others of their state rights based on their personal religious beliefs, consider the legacy of Cesar Chavez. I do not doubt that many of you belong to another historically disenfranchised group, and would be singing another tune if say, YOUR group was the target of a bigoted majorities' cultural disfavor and subsequent legal crusade. What saddens me most is what prop 8 represents--the ongoing impotence of identity politics, which in their aim to see tangible results for one group, ignores the intersections of oppression that so many experience and thus fails to build the solidarity needed for broader social justice.

One subject at a time --

One subject at a time -- apples are apples, oranges are oranges, and presidential speeches should not be fruit salad. This presentation by Obama was devoted to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court. If the president wishes to address the problems generated by the recent ruling of the California State Supreme Court, he can do so at a separate appearance. The simple fact that he cited the principle of equal justice under the law in connection with the Sotomayor nomination does not mean that he was obligated to segue into a totally separate situation to which that principle might be applicable, even though the second situation happened to arise around the same time as the first. I happen to think that the CA Court's ruling was specious, that the original vote upheld by the Court was an artifact of low turnout, and that the result of this action is unconstitutional and unjust. But I also think that Sotomayor's nomination is a great breakthrough, and that it bears no connection to the mess in CA. Thus the above article is a bad mishmash.

I presume you're all aware

I presume you're all aware of just how long it took for women to have the vote. Right? Less than 50 years ago, gays and lesbians were Open Season for physical abuse... couldn't show their face anywhere near a gay bar or they'd be arrested, beaten or worse. So try to remember: 1. We're better off than we were. 2. We have the truth on our side. 3. Younger people overwhelmingly favor gay marriage. 4. It's only his first term... there is a lot to accomplish... and even Lincoln didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation until he had a solid Northern victory in his pocket. Please show a little maturity, and show a little patience: we WILL get there, and soon.

I'm afraid that among voters

I'm afraid that among voters the pendulum may be swinging the other way. Latest polls in California show that there was a slight rise to opposition to same sex marriage. But, things are not as grim as they were in the 1950s when verbal and physical abuse of gays was the fashion. It may take longer than contemplated for full equality. However, the current struggle should be at the state level to convince state legislatures to grant same sex marriages performed in other states full faith and credit.

Obama is a moral coward. He

Obama is a moral coward. He runs from any live-wire issue, except the sulfurous smoke of war and "terrorism", which obviously he embraces with passion and commitment. His rhetoric is both uniform and consistent on the two new wars: his gifts to the left who put him in office. Remember, though, that Obama was trained by the neo-conservative economists at Harvard. Then he dove into Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago, into that pile of intellectual dung. Simply put, he's an academic who has played by all the rules created by the "high priests" in Cambridge and Chicago. He's already broken about 5 of his campaign promises: don't ask don't tell, withdraw from Iraq, open and transparent government, stopping torture, closing GITMO, etc... Of course, he's going to play the gay civil rights card only when it's politically advantageous -if he ever plays it at all. You can see when he speaks how methodically calculating he is, a well-polished, glittering fibber. With a straight face he breaks campaign promise after campaign promise. So, don't expect much for the gay community, until a time comes when he needs to re-appease the left, perhaps when his re-election looks like it may be in jeopardy - as I said - if that time ever comes. For him to make a simple statement about Proposition 8 would have been easy and appropriate since the one wayward vote was cast by the man he considered nominating for the Supreme Court.

I think there were many that

I think there were many that were expecting a profound change from "business as usual" with the election of Obama. I had serious doubts that systems change could happen through an election. This system has roles from president on down for well funded elected officials to fill. Those elected are shaped by the role, NOT the other way around. Systems sustain themselves and effectively block anything or body that threatens its mode of operation. The previous administration was top heavy with oil interest. This current one is heavily represented by banking interest. I think we need to analyze more deeply what we can reasonably expect from this administration, win what we can and in the meantime organize to put in place the kind of government we really want and need. We need a deeper, more authentic Democracy. Is reform possible? Are you sure the Constitution was written to defend your rights? We shouldn't need all these qualifiers before the term "rights", but we do. I know many were upset here in Minnesota when Sen. Paul Wellstone, of all people, took the same position for marriage being between one man and one woman. Those of us who knew him for years were shocked! We thought we knew him in relationship to that basic issue, but I guess we didn't. I think the economic justice problem needs to be solved. Beyond that I look to the wisdom of an original American Prophet whose quote follows: "Were you looking to be held together by lawyers? Or by an agreement on a paper? or by Arms? Nay, not the world, nor any living thing will so cohere." Walt Whitman

It is at times like this

It is at times like this that I recall the very true words of Tariq Ali speaking about human rights that "Rights historically. . .have been traditionally in human history fought and won, and they only become rights when they are given juridicial standing". That is what we must remember as we move steadfastly forward, that anything worthwhile is going to be hard fought. The very terrible decision made by the Supreme Court of California must be changed. The court did not stand to protect the rights the marginalized, but instead validated discrimination with their stamp of approval. Pres. Obama is unbelievably weak on this issue. It truly is an outrage.