Emotions mixed after gay marriage ruling

SAN FRANCISCO — This city changed America. When then-Mayor Gavin Newsom opened City Hall to same-sex marriages during the 2004 Winter of Love, he had determined to “put a human face on discrimination.” The long line of couples eager to tie the knot appealed to the public’s romantic side. When two people are in love and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, activists asked, how can the government say no?

That sentiment permeates Friday’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. “In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in an opinion supported by all four justices appointed by a Democrat. “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

San Francisco spent the weekend celebrating this victory for gay and lesbian couples. For good reason: This gay-friendly city moved public opinion to the point that a majority of Americans supports same-sex marriage. The days and nights of cowering in a closet are over.

Consider how quickly and overwhelmingly public opinion shifted. In 2000, 61 percent of California voters approved a ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman. After Newsom turned City Hall into a chapel of love in 2004, 14 states banned same-sex marriage and Sen. Dianne Feinstein concluded the San Francisco weddings were “too much, too fast, too soon.” Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barbara Boxer defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

At the time, I warned, “If Newsom can ignore a law he doesn’t like, why shouldn’t everyone else in the Special City do likewise?” Likewise state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, warned that if the courts upheld Newsom’s nuptials, then “local elected officials throughout the state would have license to ignore any state laws they disagree with, whether for personal, philosophical or political reasons.”

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned the state’s same-sex marriage ban by a 4-3 vote. From City Hall’s steps, Newsom famously crowed, “This door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.”

Months later, 52 percent of California voters approved a constitutional measure to ban same-sex marriage. The state Supreme Court upheld the will of the voters, but federal courts overturned Proposition 8. (Friday’s Obergefell vs. Hodges ruling settled cases that originated in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.)

I always thought advocates should put a measure to legalize same-sex marriage on the ballot — add in protections for religious objections and a ban on polygamy and they would have had my vote with a smile. Often, however, culture doesn’t change in neat steps as you think it should. So I celebrate that gay and lesbian friends, as well as their children, feel more secure in the eyes of the law. Yes, they are loved.

The romantic in me rejoices. The lover of states’ — and voters’ — rights mourns. I cannot celebrate five judges imposing their view of marriage by fiat. I cannot ignore that Kennedy waited to do so until same-sex marriage was popular. Public opinion can turn on a dime. Not long ago, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage when that view was popular. Now that same position makes someone a “hater.” I wonder: What punishment will the five potentates impose on the newly politically unpopular?

Email Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks to reporters during a press conference about the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Wednesday, May 1, 2024. Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation on Wednesday to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major shift in policy that has wide public support, but which is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government. (Valerie Plesch/The New York Times)
Editorial: Federal moves on cannabis encouraging, if incomplete

The Biden administration and the Senate offer sensible proposals to better address marijuana use.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, May 7

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

A radiation warning sign along the road near the Hanford Site in Washington state, on Aug. 10, 2022. Hanford, the largest and most contaminated of all American nuclear weapons production sites, is too polluted to ever be returned to public use. Cleanup efforts are now at an inflection point.  (Mason Trinca/The New York Times)
Editorial: Latest Hanford cleanup plan must be scrutinized

A new plan for treating radioactive wastes offers a quicker path, but some groups have questions.

Maureen Dowd: Consider the three faces of Donald Trump

Past, present and future are visibile in his countenance; an especially grim one on the cover of Time.

Paul Krugman: Still no stag and not much flation

The grumbling about inflation’s slow path to 2 percent isn’t worth steps that risk a recession.

David Brooks: Why past is prologue and protests help Trump

Today’s crowd-sourced protests muddle their message and goals and alienate the quiet disapprovers.

Jamelle Bouie: We pay price for upper-class state legislators

If we want more working-class representation, we need to make those positions more accessible.

A driver in a Tesla reportedly on "autopilot" allegedly crashed into a Snohomish County Sheriff's Office patrol SUV that was parked on the roadside Saturday in Lake Stevens. There were no injuries. (Snohomish County Sheriff's Office)
Editorial: Tesla’s Autopilot may be ‘unsafe at any speed’

An accident in Maltby involving a Tesla and a motorcycle raises fresh concerns amid hundreds of crashes.

A Black-capped Chickadee sits on a branch in the Narbeck Wetland Sanctuary on Wednesday, April 24, 2024 in Everett, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Bird act’s renewal can aid in saving species

It provides funding for environmental efforts, and shows the importance of policy in an election year.

Volunteers with Stop the Sweeps hold flyers as they talk with people during a rally outside The Pioneer Courthouse on Monday, April 22, 2024, in Portland, Ore. The rally was held on Monday as the Supreme Court wrestled with major questions about the growing issue of homelessness. The court considered whether cities can punish people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)
Editorial: Cities don’t need to wait for ruling on homelessness

Forcing people ‘down the road’ won’t end homelessness; providing housing and support services will.

RGB version
Editorial cartoons for Monday, May 6

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Michelle Goldberg: When elections on line, GOP avoids abortion

Even among the MAGA faithful, Republicans are having second thoughts on how to respond to restrictions.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.