| The team at Reach And Teach has decided to make marriage equality one of the key issues we focus on in 2010. With the launch of the Perry v Schwarzenegger case in the news, we wanted to share a bit about how the findings in this case, which will eventually go to the Supreme Court, may impact civil liberties for a long time to come. We get to our perspective through personal impact, plus through the lens of having created CIVIO, A Civil Rights Game, which chronicles the ups and downs of civil rights through freedoms articulated in the Bill of Rights, key issues of freedom and liberty, laws passed by local and national legislatures, U.S. Constitutional amendments, and historic Supreme Court decisions. Kristin M. Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a U.S. District Court case challenging the constitutional validity of California Proposition 8. Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Protection Act) is an amendment to the California State Constitution that outlaws same-sex marriages performed after November 4, 2008. It was adopted as a ballot initiative in 2008. The plaintiffs in Perry seek to have the federal courts strike down Proposition 8 as contrary to the United States Constitution.
To give some perspective to how the United States has reached the point where, eventually, the Supreme Court will be called on to decide whether homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the laws pertaining to marriage, we'll start by looking at a set of seven CIVIO cards that make up what we like to call a "Thurgood Flush." That means these are seven cards that can be put down on the table by a CIVIO player to win a round, because they are clearly and properly linked to each other. Yep, we're starting with the "Race Card." In CIVIO, you can start your run of cards by choosing an issue that relates to the first law or case in your list. Cases and laws that could go with the race card include Jim Crow Laws - which denied blacks equal treatment under the law, Plessy v Ferguson - which overturned Jim Crow laws, Brown v Board of Education - which desegregated schools, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For this string of CIVIO cards, we're going to connect the race card to a key civil rights case that has a direct connection to marriage equality.
Can the police barge into a house and arrest two adult American citizens for being in bed together, just because they are of different races? Could those two people actually be convicted of having committed a crime for having gotten married? Until Loving v Virginia, the answer was yes. The Supreme Court, however, found in 1967 that a Virginia law banning inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional both for denying equal treatment under the law and violating due process rights since it interfered with the basic right of "freedom to marry."
Shortly before her death in 2008, Mildred Loving let the world know how she felt about the struggle for marriage equality for gays."I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
Can the police barge into a house and arrest two adult American citizens for being in bed together, just because they are of the same gender? Could those two people actually be convicted of having committed a crime for engaging in consensual sexual relations with each other? Yes! And in 1986 the Supreme Court decided in Bowers v Hardwick that these two men had no right to privacy in their own home. On each case card we include in CIVIO, we identify other cases and freedoms that may have been strengthened or weakened based on the Supreme Court's decision. Bowers v Hardwick weakened the rights to privacy, equal treatment, and the decision in Bowers v Hardwick could eventually have impacted Roe v Wade (a case concerning abortion which relied heavily on a women's right to privacy) and Loving v Virginia.
Can the people in a state go to the ballot box and prohibit the legislature from passing any laws to protect the rights of homosexuals? If they passed such a ballot measure, could it be stronger than the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? In 1996, the Supreme Court of the United States said "no" in the case of Romer v Evans. The Court found that the proposition violated the 14th amendment's guarantee that all citizens have a fundamental right to equal treatment under the law. The State of Colorado argued that it was only trying to deny "special rights" being conferred. The Court disagreed saying, "It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence."
What CIVIO case did Romer v Evans weaken? Bowers v Hardwick! Ten years after deciding that homosexuals were not equally protected, the court made a different decision!
Can a police officer enter the apartment of an adult couple, weapon drawn, because he suspects the couple is engaged in sexual activity? Could two adults be convicted of a crime because they were engaged in consensual activity simply because they were of the same gender? Haven't we heard these questions before? Hasn't all this already been decided, once and for all? Could the Supreme Court come to a different decision than they did in Bowers v Hardwick after just ten years? Yes. In Lawrence v Texas, the court ruled, "The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause." Bowers v Hardwick was overturned by this decision. Romer v Evans was strengthened by this decision.
The freedom of equality was strengthened by this case as was the freedom of privacy. For each string of CIVIO cards, you can include one freedom that was strengthened by the last case in the string.
The 14th Amendment is a critical element of many decisions made about civil rights in the United States. Since it was referenced on several of the cases in this string of CIVIO cards, the player gets to complete her "Thurgood Flush" with this card. Wow! What a roller coaster from Jim Crow to here.
So, can just over 50% of the voters in one election go to the ballot box and change their state's constitution to deny homosexuals equal treatment under the marriage laws? Yes, they can and yes they did. Now the question becomes whether that action will be upheld by a Federal court and eventually by the Supreme Court. From Jim Crow Laws in 1890 to Lawrence v Texas in 2003, to Perry v Schwarzenegger here in 2010, one thing is certain, the United States has a good system in place for helping us figure out what's right. And although the roller coaster of civil rights laws and court decisions can make us all a little dizzy, we need to strap ourselves in and stay put for the ride. Everything WE the PEOPLE do matters. We choose our leaders who write laws and nominate/approve Supreme Court judges, we get to vote directly on laws (like California's Proposition 8), and no matter how much cynics may try to convince us otherwise our leaders DO listen to us and learn from us. Judging from the long history just demonstrated in this string of cases, our work for equal rights for all people will continue long after the marriage equality debate for gay people has been decided. Reach And Teach plans to be in the struggle for equal rights for all people for a long time. Join us for the ride! Here are some extra resources you might want to check out and use in this particular struggle for equal rights: And yes, in case you didn't already know..... this one is personal. Click here to read one story about us and how the decision by the courts will impact us directly. It is noteworthy to point out that the Governor of California (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and the state's Attorney General (Jerry Brown), do not support Proposition 8. As in the Romer v Evans case, the governor's name ends up being part of the case because he is the chief executive of the state whose people voted on the ballot measure. Governor Romer was elated when the court struck down that state's anti-gay ballot measure. The organization that promoted Proposition 8 and is fighting for it to be upheld by the courts is called ProtectMarriage.com, click here to visit their web site if you'd like to review their position on this case. Check out some of these other Reach And Teach resources on gender and GLBTQ issues. |
