No one can blame gay Americans for celebrating the California Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn a voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
At first glance, the case appears to be a key victory for same-sex marriage proponents. But, in truth, any judicial action that strikes down a democratically enacted law is a step in wrong direction — both tactically and ideologically.
There is no way around it. At some point, a majority of American voters, rather than a slight majority of judges, must be convinced that gay marriage deserves legal recognition.
Don’t get me wrong. I count myself among the convinced. Committed relationships — socially, emotionally, sexually — between two individuals, whatever the gender component, is favorable to a lack of such relationships.
If Ashton Kutcher can call it marriage, well . . . come on.
According to polls, a majority of you profess an eagerness to grant gay couples the right to domestic partnerships, civil unions or marriage — and, I assume, a couple of divorces, if we’re talking the full “sanctity of marriage” experience here.
Yet, the results of these polls and elections, unbelievably enough, are often in conflict. While voters preen about their sophisticated world views, they tend to pull the lever for traditional values.
This happens in both blue states and red. In the past two major elections, 20 states have passed initiatives solidifying the definition of marriage (26 in all) as being strictly between one man and one woman.
Quite often, to convince voters conventional marriage is defenseless from the forces of darkness, social conservatives point to judicial activist courts that commandeer the will of the people and ascribe new rights and meanings to marriage.
Just like the California Supreme Court did last week.
One doesn’t need to be a legal expert to feel the decision was a stretch, but in some respect it’s irrelevant. Perception is often more valuable politically than fact. And the perception is — rightfully so in this case — that four judges in California hijacked democracy and redefined marriage.
The result? Now that the court has struck down a statute, almost certainly, Californians will be voting on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman this November. (The California Defense of Marriage Act passed by more than 60 percent in 2000.)
As one justice wrote in dissent, “California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.”
If persuading California on marriage, where such progressive laws on domestic partnerships already exist, is so tough, you can imagine that nationally, such a transformation is years away. And that change should start with political, not judicial, support.
We know, of course, that Republicans, as a party, oppose gay marriage — a large constituency being social- issues conservatives. Yet, once again, don’t be fooled.
Once we set aside all the rhetoric about “dignity” and accusations of homophobia and supposed “wedge-issue” campaigning, not a single national Democrat running for office supports gay marriage.
Democratic candidates miraculously transform into hardcore states-rights advocates when it comes to the issue — a nice way to keep your hands clean. All three presidential candidates agree that “marriage is between a man and a woman.”
So they’re no help.
Time will help. The day is coming when gay marriage will be accepted. Using judicial activism to coerce acceptance, though, is only hurting the cause.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
