Separate but equal, my ass.

From today’s New York Times: “A state appeals court ruled Thursday that California's ban on gay marriage does not violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.”

My blood pressure just SKYROCKETED. But wait, there’s more.

“‘We conclude California's historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class,’ the court said.”

Just like the “historical definition of marriage" used to bar blacks and whites from tying the knot, huh? Just like the “historical definition of citizen with voting rights" didn’t used to include “person of color” or “woman.” Haven’t we realized that hiding behind historical precedent is notoriously wrongheaded? That a pernicious imbalance of power is fond of masquerading as the status quo?

So it’s not discrimination to withhold from me and my girlfriend the legal rights and protections enjoyed by, say, my brother and his wife? I’m really less worthy? Huh. Tell that to my mom.

Hearteningly, the strongly worded dissent argued that "the inescapable effect of the analysis the majority adopts is to diminish the humanity of the lesbians and gay men whose rights are defeated. The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

Last year, a Superior Court judge in San Francisco got this whole glittery gay disco ball rolling by saying the same thing, that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates a fundamental right and amounts to unconstitutional gender-based discrimination. (A judge in Hawaii said the same thing ten years ago. Remember?)

Polls show that a majority of young people agree. So it's only a matter of time before the dinosaurs die off. (If we manage to survive that long. Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? Better sell that beachfront property. And buy a hybrid, for the love of god!)

The entire raging gay marriage debate hinges on binary oppositions that are specious to begin with: male and female, hetero and homo. Sex and gender – not to mention religion, politics and law – are constructions, after all. It’s hard, though, not to get sucked into this sort of polarized thinking in our current red vs. blue color wars. And ultimately, even if gay marriage is a normative idea that doesn't disrupt false binary oppositions underpinning constructed identities, I still want one, thank you very much.

From my early days agitating with Queer Nation and the Lesbian Avengers (I bet there’s an FBI file with my name on it), I’ve believed that gay rights, like any civil rights, are won via the grass-roots: workplaces and kitchen tables (and, yes, living rooms – unbiased TV portrayals matter). The more people realize that they know and love queers, trannies and dog-crazy dykes, the more they will join the good fight. Hence the importance of coming out. Hence the political significance of walking down the street holding my lover’s hand, displaying her picture in my office, taking her home for the holidays. I categorically refuse to be a second-class citizen.



California Supreme Court, here we come.