It’s been a long time coming, but Federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the 2008 California ruling that defined marriage in the state as between one man and one woman. The case will most likely be headed to an appeals court–being determined on August 6–but it is an indication that more federal recognition could be on its way. Walker stated in his summation that the proposition was unconstitutional because it violated federal due process and equal protections laws for gay and lesbian people. This follows up a recent Massachusetts ruling that declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional on the same grounds.

by Kevin Sparrow

The increasing vocality from “traditional marriage” defenders the National Organization for Marriage, they of the gathering storm and awkwardly confused children ads, from Maine to Iowa has been monitored closely by same-sex marriage proponents, so it seems appropriate to take account of what this group is actually saying. They have even helped out by providing a list of talking points to their adherents, which you can read by following the link (up to your discretion).

The first statement they purport is that their view of marriage as a union between man and woman is “just common sense.” Common means something we all share, and when the country is split fairly evenly on the issue of gay marriage, there is no way that the current status of marriage is common sense.

The deplorable and contradictory rhetoric of these talking points continues directly from there with what they deem the “single  most effective message”: “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.” First, this pulls the argument back to homosexuality being a choice, and second, recognizing marriage as a right for all people is not redefining it. Amendments to the Constitution do not alter the fundamental beliefs on which it was founded; they just broaden its power. The same would be true of civil marriage if recognized as belonging to everyone and highlights that we in the LGBT community do not have the right to live as we choose when many rights are denied us, including federal marriage.

The most inconsistent part of these talking points come in the FAQ section. After urging their members to “shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage” and “n[o]t get sidetracked” by peripheral issues such as gay rights, discrimination or benefits (the primary concerns brought about by this argument and the reason it exists), NOM spends much of its time discussing the role of having both a mother and a father in parenting–a completely separate issue from marriage–and even discusses adoption when discussing couples who may not be able to conceive. “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this.” Adoption, in most states, can be achieved in or out of wedlock and even by single people. If their goal is to talk solely about their (limited) view of marriage, they are doing a very poor job of putting that message across.

They also try to make this argument from that framework: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.” We get that common sense thread again; as common sense as equating bigotry as solely against racial minorities. No, NOM, you are not like racists, but you are bigots.

by Kevin Sparrow

The current financial crisis facing California’s government is looking grim for its citizens. Many are being mailed IOUs to replace their expected stimulus checks as a final budget for the 2009-2010 fiscal year has yet to be decided. A number of banks have announced they are willing to award the money for the IOUs if they are presented by July 10, but with the IOUs mailing date only beginning on July 2, many people will not receive them in time. They will have to wait until October 2 to receive their checks, when the IOUs will increase by their 1.5% interest rates and cost California’s government more money to pay out.

However, California had an opportunity to minimize this hardship. Funding that would have gone directly to the state from same-sex marriages could have been given a chance to grow from the initial start date of court sanctioned marriages in June 2008. Only Proposition 8 was passed in November, and the money spent on the Yes on 8 campaign to overturn the court ruling went solely to private organizations, offering no return to the citizens of California. Had Proposition 8 not passed, same-sex marriages would have continued, and the money received from these additional unions and tourism to the state from outside may have reconstituted itself in the stimulus money by providing the state legislature enough excess cash to finalize their budget on time. The state denied a beneficial opportunity to expand their income and improve their economy

The best example of how same-sex marriage has positively affected a state’s economy is from the first state to allow equal marriage. According to a recent UCLA Law School study by the Williams Institute, Massachusetts has earned over $111 million directly from gay marriages—from license registration to tourism—over the five years since they have been instituted in the state. Because they have a civil standing, a large percentage of that money goes directly to the government, creating a healthier economic climate in the state. In fact, Massachusetts is the ninth most prosperous state in the U.S., falling closely behind other progressive states like Connecticut and New Jersey. And since 2002, Massachusetts has been the number one state most adaptable to the current economy, showing that when progressive ideas are embraced, the money follows.

This is not to say that gay marriage alone would provide enough money to bail out a failing economy, but as much as subjective morality has been promulgated as the need for traditional marriage, economic impact should be a stronger incentive to provide practical approaches to how we decide on cultural issues. The degradation of society comes from the quality of life its citizens receive, not from changing morality (which is nearly redundant), and an unhealthy economy is a major factor contributing to a low quality of life. By supporting gay marriage, states have a better chance of supporting themselves and their citizens. It has yet to be seen if this is a lesson California will learn.