California and time

Today the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that re-banned same-sex marriage in the state. In doing so, it was playing its part in California’s drama, but only a part. I think this saga tells us a lot about the nature of our opponents.

This whole drama began, most people think, when the California Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian people had the right to marry under the California Constitution. However, the California legislature passed marriage equality twice, and the Republican governor vetoed it twice. His thinking on the issue has never been particularly rational or consistent, but his double vetoes set the stage for the Court intervention. It was the willingness of the legislature to enact marriage equality that motivated the religious activists, and they would have acted regardless of what made that equality happen.

The religious right got their measure on the ballot and passed it with a small—but clear—majority of votes. Legal challenges were mounted, and today the court has upheld the right of the people to amend their constitution, even if doing so strips away fundamental rights.

This was a legally correct, but morally bankrupt decision. In a democracy, people have the right to take away the rights of the minority, even though it’s immoral to actually do so. The Prop 8 ruling violated every concept of universal justice in order to uphold the injustice of the majority deciding to take away the rights of a minority.

And yet, ultimately, this will be the best thing to have happened: Marriage equality came to California by judicial fiat, something that many people—not all of them on the knuckle-dragging end of the right wing—find, at best, troubling. The speed of the change left the court ahead of the people, and the anti-equality campaign capitalised on that.

The pro-equality side, faced with a barrage of lies, smears and distortions, started branding everyone who supported Prop 8 as bigots, homophobes and even christo-fascists. I’ve argued many times that there’s no rational reason for anyone to oppose marriage equality, but that doesn’t mean those opponents are bigots or worse (even if some demonstrably were).

In my opinion, something else is going on here, something that explains our opponents: Fear.

Human beings are naturally suspicious of change and can be fearful of it, particularly when it’s sudden and seemingly imposed, something beyond their control. The right has always known this and has exploited it to keep the pro-equality forces on the back foot, constantly in defensive mode.

The winner on the Prop 8 debate would always have been the side that successfully addressed the fears of voters. The Yes on 8 folks pandered to and exploited that fear, while the No on 8 people did nothing (they could have shown, for example, there was nothing to fear).

When change is allowed to evolve, to emerge organically, people have time to accept it. That change then becomes the new reality that people are reluctant to change. So, when states in the northeast of the US moved through the legislative process to legalise marriage equality, people had time to adapt and that new reality instantly became stronger. When legislatures adopt marriage equality, it starts with a significant backing—elected politicians seldom lead on any issue out of fear of defeat at the ballot box. They support change because the majority of their constituents already do.

When marriage equality is imposed by courts, there’s an almost automatic reluctance to accept it, even a predisposition to fight it. Court-ordered marriage equality in Massachusetts looked at first like it may not survive, but five years later it finally looks like it may last—thanks to time. The other northeastern states that passed marriage equality through the legislature start ahead of where Massachusetts was (not that this will stop the anti-equality forces from trying to repeal it).

This delay infuriates some—those who want it all and they want it now. But real change seldom happens like that.

By the time the US Supreme Court finally struck down laws preventing people of different races from marrying, most states had already moved past that. On the issue of marriage equality, we’ve seen courts leading. This may have worked in Massachusetts and it may work in Iowa (where there may no quick opportunity for anti-equality activists to fight it, giving it time to become the new reality). But in California, this clearly wasn’t the case, and couldn’t have been because the activists had already been working to outlaw marriage equality no matter how it had been enacted; there could be no time between enactment and the decision on whether to repeal it or not.

So, where does this leave us? We need time. We need to allay people’s fear of change, especially on this issue. We need to engage with our friends, family, co-workers—in short, everyone we know—and explain to them calmly why this issue matters. It’s the way change has been created for generations. It’s not quick, it’s messy, it’s loaded with setbacks, but ultimately it’s successful.

Pro-equality activists in California are already promising new ballot initiatives to restore marriage equality, and that’s exactly the right thing to do. Already polls are showing that, thanks to time, voters in California are shifting their position and becoming less likely to listen to the fear mongering from the right. Our side just needs to give voters the time and help they need to go the rest of the way. Once they vote to restore marriage equality—and they will, even if it takes several tries—that finally will be the end of the matter.

So, distressing as this Court ruling may be, and as bad on some points as it was, it’s a bump on the road to victory. Like I’ve said so many times before, keep your eyes on the prize—but take everyone you know along with you. We can’t get there any other way.