California matters

Massachusetts may have had gay marriage first, but California changes everything. Are Obama and Clinton listening?
By DAVID S. BERNSTEIN  |  May 21, 2008


For four years, and 10,000 same-sex nuptials, Massachusetts has had a monopoly on gay marriage in the United States. The virus, as its opponents might see it, had been effectively contained: the Bay State was issuing licenses only to its own resident homosexuals, and almost no other states recognized their marital status outside the Massachusetts borders.

That changed in a flash at 10 o’clock Pacific Daylight Time this past Thursday morning, when the top court in the biggest and most important state in the country also gave the green light to same-sex marriages. Beginning June 14, 30 days after the ruling, California will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Reports on the ruling lacked the furor and intensity that surrounded the onset of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, or even the first civil unions in Vermont, in 2000. That seems understandable: the second to do something is simply not as newsworthy as the first.

But this is an exception to that rule. Massachusetts was first, but California matters.

It matters partly because of its size, and its central place in American culture. (Within days, for example, most Americans knew that both Ellen DeGeneres and George “Mr. Sulu” Takei planned to wed same-sex spouses in California, which is two more gay vow-takers than they could name after four years of legal same-sex marriages in Massachusetts.)

It matters because it will immediately affect statewide politics, which in California automatically sways national politics. It matters because, unlike Massachusetts, where voters have never weighed in on the issue, Californians will do so before the end of the year, in a ballot initiative that seeks to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage — at the same time that the state, and the country, chooses the next president.

And it matters because this ruling, unlike the one in Massachusetts, goes far beyond redressing unequal marriage laws, and implicitly accuses opponents of gay rights generally, and gay marriage specifically, of outright, unacceptable, unconstitutional discrimination. And by doing so, it may usher in a new era of equality and gay rights.

Two of those gay-marriage opponents, unfortunately, are Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. If they recognized the watershed importance of this past week’s ruling, they chose to remain on the side of discrimination. Given their own status as personal symbols of racial and gender accomplishment, it’s a shame they can’t or won’t embrace equality at the last remaining civil-rights frontier.

Size matters
Massachusetts will forever be first — a point of obvious pain to San Francisco residents who initiated desperate maneuvers to beat Boston to the punch after the Bay State’s Supreme Judicial Court made its historic decision in November 2003. Before that ruling took effect the following May, San Francisco’s mayor, Gavin Newsom, in the face of a clear prohibition, issued some 4000 wedding licenses to same-sex couples, all later invalidated.

That number, however, hints at the power in California’s size: 8000 people lined up, in the state’s fourth-largest city (after Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose), for an illegal marriage license almost certain to be worthless.

When it comes to new public policy, most states serve as America’s test kitchens. California’s policy changes, though, become juggernauts that often have inevitable effects on the rest of the country.

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |   next >
Related: Courthouse marriage, Jubilation!, A deadly move against same-sex marriage, More more >
  Topics: Talking Politics , Massachusetts, U.S. Democratic Party, Law,  More more >
| More

Most Popular
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   MRS. WARREN GOES TO WASHINGTON  |  March 21, 2013
    Elizabeth Warren was the only senator on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, aside from the chair and ranking minority, to show up at last Thursday's hearing on indexing the minimum wage to inflation.
  •   MARCH MADNESS  |  March 12, 2013
    It's no surprise that the coming weekend's Saint Patrick's Day celebrations have become politically charged, given the extraordinary convergence of electoral events visiting South Boston.
  •   LABOR'S LOVE LOST  |  March 08, 2013
    Steve Lynch is winning back much of the union support that left him in 2009.
  •   AFTER MARKEY, GET SET, GO  |  February 20, 2013
    It's a matter of political decorum: when an officeholder is running for higher office, you wait until the election has been won before publicly coveting the resulting vacancy.
    It wasn't just that Scott Brown announced he was not running in the special US Senate election — it was that it quickly became evident that he was not handing the job off to another Republican.

 See all articles by: DAVID S. BERNSTEIN