Reflections on the Prop 8 Hearing

Rachel Maddow interviews San Francisco city attorney:

Rex Wockner's take on the hearing: "not a happy day in San Francisco."

Disaster. They constantly interrupted the gay side with aggressive questions, but let Ken Starr go on and on and on. They were obsessed with the fact that the
domestic-partnership law gives the same rights as marriage, and they completely ignored the fact that they so eloquently argued that separate isn't equal in their previous ruling. They seemed enamored of the notion that the people can do almost whatever they want via the ballot-box amendment process -- including repealing freedom of speech, banning gay adoption, pretty much any damned thing they choose. We're not winning this one. It could even be unanimous. That leaves the gay side with two options: Return to the California ballot with a pro-active initiative to attempt to undo Prop 8. Or take it to the U.S. Supreme Court, using the U.S. Supreme Court's pro-gay ruling in the Colorado Amendment 2 case as a spot-on precedent.

And an oblique reference by Andrew Sullivan:

A bill to turn the state's civil unions into civil marriages has been put on the fast track by the legislature. The main question seems to be whether the governor would veto the bill. The Senate has a veto-proof margin of support - but not the House. I have to say I prefer this legislative grind to a court diktat. The same process is slowly working in New York state. Very soon, we are likely to have marriage equality in Iowa as well - and another legislative and democratic fight to retain it. Those of us fighting for civil equality need to relish these battles rather than try to short-circuit them. Because we have the better arguments.

What I say: Boys and girls, does it really come as a great shock to you that your rights are subject to majority vote?

Welcome to reality. Everybody's rights are always subject to majority vote - and to the whim, the moral fashion of the times.

And ninety percent of what we call morality - right and wrong - is just that: a fashion. Something that changes, something that is not carved in stone.

I tend to agree with Sullivan: it would be nice to have some court magically whisk away all the discriminatory laws against us, and make everything pretty overnight, magically, without risk, without effort.

But that's a kind of cartoon way of thinking. Look back in your history books, you'll see that no minority, no oppressed group in this country or any other has ever gotten their wish that way. It takes a determined struggle, and changing the laws, which is often messy and not always easy.

But getting the majority to support a change in the laws is a far more secure position to be in, once we convince them of the need for change. Yes, a court ruling can overturn a law; but then a new law or new ruling can overturn that one.

So the struggle goes on, and it's a long one that requires patient, persistent effort. Are you up for it, guys?