Win but Fail: Perry V. Schwarzenegger Ruling Declares Proposition 8 Unconstitutional

Sinatra might have sung that love and marriage "go together like a horse and carriage," but for same-sex couples in most of the United States, sometimes love looks a lot more like trying to drag the carriage down the road while watching paired husbands and wives speed past all day.

While the legal and social battles over marriage parity have been going on for years, and probably won't be decided any time soon, but Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling that California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional is another very definite step toward equality for same-sex couples. Judge Walker's 136 page ruling outlines the arguments between proponents of Proposition 8 and two same-sex couples who challenged it, and his care in teasing the secular argument and the question of whether there's a compelling state interest in preventing same-sex couples from marrying is evident. This is a landmark case with the potential to set precedent for years to come.

Or, as our current Vice President might say, it's a Big F-ing Deal.

WIN

I feel like I shouldn't even have to explain why this is a good thing, but I also know that there are plenty of well-meaning people who don't get why marriage parity is both good and necessary. So here's the short version.

Marriage has been shown to be of benefit to couples on multiple levels. The social meaning of marriage alone - that two people are in a committed, long-term relationship with no projected end date while both are living - is incredibly significant. It alters the way a couple is treated, both as a unit and as individuals, in virtually every area of their lives. From family members and friends to lenders and landlords, it has an effect that even an equivalent civil union does not. It's also been demonstrated that married couples are healthier, have more robust finances, have more tools at their disposal in terms of child care, are better able to plan for the disposition of their estates upon their death, and have more recourse if their union breaks down.

Furthermore, when the state refuses a group of people a basic right, it sends a message not only to that group but to the entire culture that the lives and rights of those persons are somehow less than classes who are afforded basic rights. Refusing same-sex couples the right to marry is an explicit statement not only that their relationships are less valid, but that they are as individuals of less consequence than individuals in mixed-sex partnerships, or whose sexual orientation makes them inclined to mixed-sex partnerships. That minority groups suffer deleterious effects from this kind of discrimination on all levels has been documented time and again.

As Judge Walker's ruling on Perry v. Schwarzenegger demonstrates, the secular arguments against same-sex marriage just don't stand up against secular arguments for it. Opponents of same-sex marriage aren't acting in the interests of the greater good, or able to show that there's a compelling state interest in treating LGBTQ people differently. They're merely seeking to enshrine their personal beliefs in law.

In many ways, that's the real brilliance of the ruling. Judge Walker's findings scrape away the façade of the conservative argument against marriage parity and show that the scaremongering and rhetoric has little substance, while the argument for social justice can be supported under the law.

FAIL

Judge Walker's ruling is welcome, make no mistake. People are celebrating it, and rightly so. However, it isn't a complete victory. There's still a lot to do, and things may well get worse before they get better for LGBTQ rights.

Within hours of the announcement, social conservatives have already begun rattling sabers. The American Family Association is calling to impeach Judge Walker, while former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has released a statement saying the ruling amounts to "outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States."

Gingrich has previously compared rulings in California that declare marriage discrimination unconstitutional to the tyranny of the English over the colonies during the Eighteenth Century. It's difficult to say whether it's more ironic that a group seeking to prevent a minority group from enjoying equal rights and protections under the law is doing so under the auspices of Liberty, or that it's Newt Gingrich (twice divorced, thrice married) coming out to protect marriage.

Also frustrating was Judge Walker's decision to issue a stay almost immediately after his ruling. While it remains to be seen how long that stay will be in place, or the purpose of it, it's a sure sign that the fight in California isn't over. It's not just likely that Prop 8 supporters will try to appeal, the Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling is another rallying point for the Right Wing to decry so-called activist judges. If Gingrich is already making a connection between this and Elena Kagan, you can bet that this November is going to be insane.

THE VERDICT

Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling is a welcome relief for a lot of us in the LGBTQ community, and a sign that things can change, but it would be a mistake to treat it like the sort of victory we can rest on. The rhetoric is already ugly, and that isn't likely to change just because a judge declared a referendum in California to be unconstitutional.

My feeling is that we should take Judge Walker's ruling in the spirit of tent revival. A court has upheld the rule of law and individual liberty in the face of groups that would enshrine tyranny! Hallelujah! Get excited! Let the knowledge that good can come of these things be a source of energy and momentum so that we can all find the candidates in our own states who will do those same good things and support the LGBTQ community and help get them into office!

It sounds a bit twee, but when the alternative is people like John Kyl who want to repeal the 14^th Amendment, canvassing starts to look a lot more attractive.