Who'd Have Thought It: Gay-Bashing California

November 4th may have brought a promise of 'hope' and 'change' to a nation exhausted by eight years of George Bush but in California it would appear that the old forces of division were alive and well and out in force. Proposition Eight - a ballot-initiative proposal to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman and thereby prevent same-sex couples from marrying - passed by a slim 52-48 margin in a supposedly liberal Democratic state.

So, how did it pass? Let's begin with the more trivial reasons.

Firstly, it is alleged that opponents of Proposition Eight irritated the electorate. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is seen as kicking off the game of legal football which led to California, for a short period, conducting same-sex ceremonies, wound up conservatives by boasting (at a rally following an earlier judicial setback to the cause) that same-sex marriages were "going to happen, whether you like it or not." It is also argued that the behaviour of the gay community aggravated social tensions during the campaign. One such example is that of Tara Miller, a teacher in Hayward, CA, who got her kindergartners - in the run-up to the vote - to sign 'pledge cards' issued by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network promising 'not to use anti-LGBT language or slurs' and to 'intervene...in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students'. Now that seems perfectly fine to me - schools should promote understanding and tolerance of all cultures and lifestyles - but it was hardly a political savvy move. Gay rights groups know just as well as anyone else that legislative success is more about tactical campaigning rather than changing hearts and minds.

Secondly, there was also a notable lack of prominent political support. Whilst both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - a rare example of Democrats and Republicans coming together in common cause - made clear that they opposed Proposition Eight they were not especially active in the 'No' camp. It must be said, of course, that even acknowledging opposition was a particularly brave move for Schwarzenegger, who risked undermining his Republican base in an overwhelmingly Democratic state ahead of a possible Senate run in 2010, but nonetheless both he and Pelosi weren't out on the stump urging voters to reject the amendment.

Thirdly, it is argued that people didn't really know what they were voting for, considering that the ballot was asking for their personal view on gay marriage as opposed to their view about the state's provisions in this regard. Pelosi herself, in analysing the result, said "Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was...I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."

Fourthly, the effect of a higher black turnout. We should take a moment to consider the rather perverse effect which now-President-Elect Obama's candidacy had on the result. Black voters - inspired to vote in massive numbers, many for the first time, for the first African American presidential candidate - were shown to be more socially conservative than their white and Hispanic counterparts and voted in favour of the amendment 69%-31%. This can be compared with the 55% of white voters and 52% of Hispanic voters who rejected the amendment. It is unfortunate that a group which for so long was denied civil rights and, indeed, continues to suffer discrimination and subjugation, would opt to deny freedoms to another oppressed minority.

But regardless of the closeness of the result and the abovementioned reasons why it was tipped in favour of the 'Yes' camp we really are splitting hairs if we dwell on the margin too much.

The real and worrying fact is that, even if the result had gone narrowly the other way, almost half of the Californian electorate would have chosen to deny gay couples the right to marry. That reveals something very worrying about social attitudes in the 21st century and suggests we still have a long way to go to achieve equality.

I have a very simple piece of advice for anyone opposed to gay marriage: don't get one! If you don't believe that it's 'right' or 'moral' then - whilst I personally don't understand what planet you're living on - I respect your view. But please don't seek to impose your own moral view on others. Americans are always banging on about how their country was founded on the principle of freedom and, as far as I'm concerned, this permits citizens to use whatever means they like to seek 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' provided that they don't, in so doing, impede anyone else's right to do the same. This basic libertarian concept - which is widely manifested in other areas of American culture - underpins all stable and cooperative societies. Gay people aren't hurting anyone. So how about leaving them to get on with it?

What is perhaps most disgusting about the continued debate into Proposition Eight, which promises to ramble on through appeal after appeal, are the attempts by the 'Yes on 8' campaign to undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters stepped in. They filed a brief telling the California Supreme Court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognised or valid in California the state can no longer recognise the existing marriages. I'd respectfully submit that the utter arsewipes pushing this twisted plot should take a running jump. Banning same-sex marriages is one thing but nullifying the marriages of those who wed legally is quite another. It would frankly be extraordinarily cruel to seek to tear up the marriage certificates of legally-wedded couples and I don't quite understand how any compassionate human being could advocate such a move. Marriage isn't something to be entered into lightly. There is deep emotional (and financial) investment involved. And no decision, however democratic, should be allowed to reverse that.

The fate of those couples already married rests with the California judiciary who are also considering, alongside this, the more general question of the legality of Proposition Eight. The 'No' camp was boosted the other day by California's Attorney-General (and former Governor) Jerry Brown - who had pledged to respect the voters' decision despite personally disagreeing with it - changing his mind to judge that "It [is] evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, t[akes] precedence over the initiative...Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I conclude [that] the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

Whilst it seems a shame that the constitutional amendment might be struck down on a technicality rather than being rejected by the electorate - the latter demonstrating that attitudes towards homosexuality are changing for the better - this is a rare example of where democracy has to be reined in (to protect the interests of a minority group). If America truly wants to live up to its reputation as the 'Land of the Free' it must accept and embrace the diversity of its people. And political leaders, where public opinion lags behind this inclusive sentiment, must be bold enough to impose the necessary change.

The trial continues...