EVOLVED!

By: Paul S. Marchand

After years of “evolution” on the subject of marriage equality, Barack Obama finally came out and said what so many of us have been waiting to hear.

In an interview today with ABC’s Robin Roberts, the president left no doubt as to his position:

    "Over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

While a number of us in the LGBT community had expressed frustration over Mr. Obama’s careful, deliberate “evolution” on this issue, we should take a moment not merely to express our appreciation to the President for taking a stand in favor of marriage equality, but also to acknowledge his courage in doing so immediately after North Carolina’s thumping rejection of marriage equality by a margin of nearly two to one, and during an election season when it is clear that his Republican opponent will seek to campaign on social wedge issues, including marriage equality.

Of course, part of the President’s so-called evolution on this issue can be attributed, at least in part, to the careful, deliberate “No Drama Obama” mystique which he and his administration have cultivated.  Yet, it may well be safe to say that even so politically savvy an operator as Barack Obama may have been taken somewhat by surprise at the accelerating pace of the public’s “evolution” on the issue of marriage equality.

Back in 1993, I was one of the first attorneys in California to challenge our state’s then-statutory ban on same gender marriage.  Those of us who litigated the issue at the time knew that we were on uncertain ground.  Only one other state, Hawai’i, had given a thumbs-up to marriage equality, in a case called Baehr v. Miike, which had found that denying same-gender couples the freedom to marry violated the Equal Protection clause of Hawaii’s constitution.  (Not surprisingly, marriage equality opponents, including the Mormon church, soon put an initiative on the ballot which overturned the Baehr decision and marched Hawaii’s GLBT community right to the back of the marital bus.)

Using the Hawai'i decision as potential persuasive precedent, my clients and I took a flyer, arguing that California’s equal protection clause should lead to the same result, that the state had no compelling interest in prohibiting same-gender couples from getting married.  At a time when roughly 75 percent of Americans (including, by the way, many queerfolk) either opposed same-gender marriage, or didn’t even know that the issue was on the table, we were not surprised when the California courts denied our petition out of hand.

At the time, a colleague in the legal profession suggested --- correctly, it turned out --- that America might be ready for same-gender marriage after, and only after, a lengthy societal conversation had occurred, and only after our straight neighbors had begun to get past their own uncertainties or discomforts with the idea.  We were, he posited, 20 years, even a generation, away from even being able to contemplate some kind of marital parity for LGBT people.

Well, it has now been just a little less than 20 years since my colleague and I had that conversation.  Even among many Republicans, George W. Bush included, the idea of some form of legal solicitude for same gender families has taken root.  While Mr. Bush made no secret of his steadfast opposition to full marriage equality, he did actually go on record stating some degree of support for some form of civil union for same-gender couples.

Of course, even as polling shows again and again that a majority or pluralities of the American public have come to support marriage equality, opposition to it still remains a staple of conservative politics, and routinely carries the day; given the chance, voters have never avoided the temptation to use the ballot box to write discrimination against minority groups into law.  Consequently, we should certainly be prepared for the inevitability that President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality may trigger a fabricated firestorm akin to that which erupted when then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom instructed his city clerk to begin solemnizing the marriages of same-gender couples.

The open question then is whether opposition to marriage equality will be as useful a tool in the GOP box as it was eight years ago, or whether the ground has shifted enough that it is actually safe for a Democratic president to endorse marriage equality without losing part of the base, or --- perhaps just as important --- damaging the electoral prospects of Congressional, state, and local Democrats.

Here in Cathedral City, on whose diversity I have previously commented, President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality may well become part of the conversation over the future direction of our community.  In a previous post, I suggested that wedge issue Culture War or Tea Partisan rhetoric might well fall on indifferent or hostile ears, especially given the criticality of other issues confronting us. 

Indeed, the issues and challenges facing Cathedral City are similar to those facing other working communities throughout the country.  They involve things like fiscal solvency, decaying infrastructure, a loss of revenue base, and increasing doubts about the basic competence of some of our “leaders.”  The pothole on Ramon Road that just ate three sedans and an SUV is indifferent to either the party registration, the immigration status, or the sexual orientation of the owners of the vehicles in question.  That the city may be facing a significant fiscal crisis is not the result of two gay men in the Cathedral City Cove having gotten married, any more than it is the result of two straight high school sweethearts tying the knot.

Let me suggest, therefore, that the extent to which those who aspire to lead us seek to divide us by opposing marriage equality or casting Cathedral city's substantial LGBT population as some kind of dangerous Other is an almost perfect barometer of their fitness to lead.  The more someone harps on the evils of marriage equality for GLBT people, the less he or she understands or cares about the kitchen table issues that matter in a community made up of workers, school-age kids who hope one day to enter the workforce, and seniors increasingly concerned about their own security in what should be a time of gracious retirement.

As a gay man, I will certainly support those who support me, and who understand that for me, and for the community of which I am a part, marriage equality matters.  At the risk of seeming simplistic, I may not necessarily support a candidate simply because he or she supports marriage equality, but I will certainly withhold my support from any candidate who opposes marraige equality, especially if that candidate makes it a centerpiece of his or her campaign.

-xxx-

PAUL S. MARCHAND is an attorney who lives and works in Cathedral City, California, where he served two terms on the city Council.  The views expressed herein are his own, and not necessarily those of any organization or entity with which he is associated, and are not intended as, and should not be construed as, legal advice.