Slow Dancing Out Loud

"This day is about people who can begin to live their lives out loud." Mayor Gavin Newsom was celebrating the California Supreme Court decision legalizing marriage for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Mayor Newsom's words resonate with me. I've not been able to forget this concept of living one's life out loud. It is amazing how much power a word or phrase has.

I'm gay, but I'm single and don't plan to get married. Still the court decision impacted me in a personal and substantive way.

The reason that I moved from Kansas City, Missouri to San Francisco, California was so that I could live my life out loud, although I didn't have the concept to match the feelings last year.

I was weary of having to decide if I should remain silent about my sexual orientation in employment. I was weary to the bone of the Bible Belt. I no longer intended to endure that silent oppression that loudly voiced itself in political life there.

The Kansas City metro area was once a free and liberal place. At least it was as compared to the small Kansas town in which I grew up. I once was enamored with its flowered boulevards and many statues and fountains. In the end, the city's facial beauty could no longer distract me from the increasingly intolerant social and political realities there.

As the Religious Right took control of the GOP, the social cancer that it brought took hold and prospered in the Plains along with the wheat.

Being in the heart of the Bible Belt, many people became more judgmental against gays and lesbians and saw no problem enforcing their religious beliefs on us in the government and increasingly, in social settings. It was an often silent, but invidious oppression.

In sharp contrast, I felt much more accepted and able to live freely in conservative Arizona than I ever did in Missouri or Kansas. When I returned to Missouri after grad school in Arizona, I never really felt at home again.

I felt as though I were holding my breath, waiting for something; waiting for I knew not what. I could never fully relax.

Finally, when the opportunity arose, I took a chance and moved from a Red State to a Blue State. I moved to what is considered the most liberal city in the U.S. if not the world.

And after Thursday's court decision establishing sexual orientation as a protected class, along with race, religion and sex, at long last, I could relax. I let go of my long-bated breath. Even with all the protections in place in California, for the first time in my adult life, I began to breath easily and deeply.

I participated in the celebratory party in the Castro Thursday night, where the entire LGBT community collectively exhaled. I couldn't help but compare it to Kansas City, where this spontaneous celebration and family feeling could never have happened. I have many gay friends there who still cannot live their lives fully out loud.

I read reactions from around the country, including one from a man in Texas who dared not to hope. But he was joyous that somewhere there was finally justice. That gave him permission to hope just a little that he would see a change someday in his home state. It was clear that he still could not live out loud.

The state argued that the only difference between domestic partnership and marriage was just a word. It implied that the word had no legal substance, no legal value, no power. Even the dissenters in Thursday's opinion didn't buy that the word had no value. Certainly those who oppose gay marriage don't think that the word has no substantive value.

If it is just a word, what a word it is to carry so much meaning, hope and acceptance for those of us who heard it applied to us for the first time in this state. The value, the power of that word, marriage, represented decades of fighting for this moment by the couples who brought the lawsuit. It had the power to make a crowd shout so loudly that the gleeful din could be heard for blocks around the Castro. It had legal substance in that for the first time known in this nation, we became a protected class where the state could not deny us our rights unless it could meet the strictest level of review by the courts.

That word means so much more than just a marriage license to us. For gays and lesbians everywhere, marriage is a homograph. For us, it means we are a huge step closer to being equal - equal in treatment by our government and equal in society for our love. Maybe a huge step closer to one day being fully accepted and respected in this country. And it means we now have a substantial set of state rights under the same name as everyone else in the state.

This one word has the power to reach across the nation and around the world. Now, other gays and lesbians can come to California and get legally married without residency requirements.

There will be a veritable stampede of gays and lesbians rushing to the alter in the event that victory is snatched from us in November. There is still a ballot initiative to amend the Constitution, which means that the struggle continues.

Yesterday I was given reason to hope even where the ballot initiative was concerned. I have a surrogate family in the Bay Area; it is my late step-father's sister and her husband. They consider me family and I, them.

I never felt that they were narrow-minded nor that my being gay was a problem for them. But I wondered how they felt about the gay marriage decision.

My step-aunt is liberal, so I really didn't figure it phased her at all. But my step-uncle is conservative and they are both Catholic. There was room for a little doubt.

My blood-relation uncle and aunt also live in this area and I don't really interact with them due to their Southern Baptist religion. In fact, my uncle is a retired Southern Baptist minister. They love me and I love them, but I don't care to have their religious prejudice in my life.

I figured my mother could do without the barrage. My uncle's constant braying about my lost soul got on her last nerve. My uncle promised my mother that he would never bring up the subject with me, but my uncle feels compelled to raise the subject when talking with her. She holds her own, but doesn't care to debate the subject when she knows they won't change their fractured view of homosexuals.

My aunt once called me when I was on a business trip to San Francisco to warn me. She was deeply concerned that I'd contract MRSA, which had just started coming to public consciousness.

She had good intentions, but I couldn't help but laugh. Her prejudice was showing like a slip peeking out from under her conservative dress.

Despite living in the Bay Area for over 40 years, she had no better idea of what constituted a gay man or his habits than someone in the Arctic Circle.

Of course, being gay and being saved are mutually exclusive in her religion. From the conversation, I quickly grasped her stereotype. She believed that all gay men danced together shirtless (undoubtedly ass-less leather chaps were her worst fear).

Since I am gay, she reasoned that I could not help myself in my unfettered depravity and go dancing shirtless with other gay men in some dark, crowded gay bar. Since MRSA was contracted by skin-to-skin contact, she feared that one shirtless slow dance might just kill me before I got saved.

I knew that her call was out of love for me. I assured her that I wasn't even visiting a gay bar while in town. In fact, I was quite a few miles from San Francisco in Burlingame, preparing for my meeting the next day. I had neither the time nor the inclination to go dancing.

I mentioned that because of my expanding waistline, I was not inclined to expose my torso, depraved dancing or not. I even reminded her that my mother and I are the only two American Indians without rhythm.

She wasn't at all convinced. "Keep your shirt on," she instructed.

Because of my Southern Baptist relatives, I couldn't help but wonder about my step-uncle's feelings or fears about gay marriage.

I needn't have worried. In talking with my step-uncle, he said, "I don't see where it affects me or my marriage. I don't have a problem with it."

My eyes welled up as I let loose of a different level of bated breath. Unlike my Southern Baptist aunt and uncle, he gets it.

Like the gay man in Texas, I have hope. I can finally live my life out loud, even as a single gay man, all because of one word.

I think that I'll go have a depraved, shirtless slow dance at a gay wedding to celebrate. Surely my auntie would agree that you can't live life out loud more than that.

What a Day for Love

"What a day, San Francisco. What a day, California. What a day for America. What a day for equality!" Mayor Gavin Newsom celebrated the San Francisco's win in the In re Marriages case.

Mayor Newsom acknowledged his Catholic faith and said that "God's delays are not God's denials."

It was refreshing to be reminded that some Christians are able to see beyond the Religious Right doctrinal rhetoric and support gay rights without qualms. One wouldn't know that they exist from most media channels. Watch Mayor Newsom's speech here.

California's Supreme Court today decided that any statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional under the state constitution's equal protection clause.

The court reiterated that the right to marry is a fundamental right. The court held that sexual orientation is a protected class. The state has to meet the same strict scrutiny standard as it did in California's landmark 1948 miscegenation case. It must show that the state had a constitutional and compelling reason to impinge on the right in furtherance of a rational and constitutionally legitimate state interest.

There are three levels of scrutiny in federal law, but only two in California law. Federal law uses rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny standards in reviewing constitutional rights cases. In California law, there is only rational basis and strict scrutiny. The court here declined to add intermediate scrutiny to California law as suggested by the California Attorney General in his arguments.

The court declined to find a constitutional right for same-sex marriage specifically, instead rolling it into the rest of the marriage rights cases under a general right to marry. The lower appellate court held that plaintiffs in the original case were looking for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, contravening the plaintiffs' actual filings that sought equal protection for the right to marry, not for a specific new constitutional right that only applied to gays and lesbians.

The court specifically struck down two statutes. One was a 1977 legislative statute specifically passed to prevent same-sex marriage. Another was a voter initiative, Proposition 22, passed in March 2000 that was controversial as to whether it applied only to recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages or even to in-state marriages.

The court held that the Prop. 22 initiative did apply to both in-state and out-of-state marriages and that to overturn it, the legislature had to submit the question to voters. The latter question was the reason that the governor used to veto same-sex marriage bills twice before.

However, in finding both statutes unconstitutional, the voters would now have to pass a constitutional amendment to purposely discriminate against gays and lesbians by denying them the right to marriage. Given the recognized right prior to the election, it places the amendment initiative in the new context of removing an established right, rather than denying a theoretical one.

That probably wouldn't pass muster under the U.S. equal protection clause given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rover v. Evans in 1996. The court held against Colorado voters who passed an anti-gay constitutional amendment based on equal protection, using the lower rational basis standard. Colorado voters amended their constitution to deny the state and local governments the power to establish any gay rights legislation in the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court found that gays and lesbians were not being given special rights. Instead, the Court found that gay rights laws simply declared and provided notice that the same rights that everyone else enjoyed also applied to the LGBT minority group. Given that the California Supreme Court found that the general right to marry also applied to the LGBT minority group, the law seems analogous should the state constitutional amendment initiative pass in November.

CNN is reporting that this decision will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The California court decided the matter exclusively using the state constitutional law, so it seems implausible that a tenable federal question could be sustained in a federal cause of action.

A state supreme court is always the final arbiter of state constitutional questions. The U.S. Supreme Court can only intervene when there is a federal question. The only possible argument that I can conjur for an appeal is if straight opponents feel that their right to equal protection or some federal right was trampled unconstitutionally by the state supreme court decision. I can't fathom such an argument having enough substance to sustain any level of scrutiny, much less making it past a motion to dismiss.

Another interesting note is that six of the seven California Supreme Court justices who were nominated by Republican governors. Only one was appointed by a Democratic governor. It is only a 4-3 decision, but it means that 3 of the 4 in the majority are Republican appointees and are presumably Republicans themselves. That's momentous.

Finally, what many have missed is that the Court holds that sexual orientation is a suspect class and that strict scrutiny applies under the California constitution. The court disassembles the contorted argument used in other cases around the country that discrimination against gays and lesbians is sex (gender) discrimination.

In its place, gays and lesbians now are a protected class specifically, along with gender and race, in California. This makes it a much more important and far-reaching opinion than just one on same-sex marriage.

The decision becomes final in 30 days, after which the first marriages can take place. The full opinion can be downloaded here.

Shady Business in Sunnyvale

Have we come to such a state that haughty solar panel owners can put their tree-hugging neighbors permanently in the carbon footprint shade? Apparently we have and that state's name is California.

Today, light trumped oxygen as a court order was carried out against a convicted redwood tree in Silicon Valley. A tree service gave a poodle cut to about a third of the Sunnyale tree's branches below the tip of the redwood to allow light to penetrate to a neighbor's solar panels. See video of the poodle-cut tree here.

At issue is a California state law, the Solar Shade Control Act of 1978, that requires that trees be removed if they block more than 10% of the light reaching solar panels during peak sunshine hours. Trees that exist at the time of the solar panel installation are exempt, but new growth on existing trees is not grandfathered in.

Mark Vargas, who has a small backyard, decided to install solar panels seven years ago. He told his neighbor, Richard Treanor, that Treanor would need to cut down his existing redwood trees to allow the sunlight to reach his solar panels.

For reasons known only to Vargas, he didn't install his seventy thousand dollar solar panels on his two-story house roof. He installed them on his back porch roof. Had he installed the panels on his house roof, the trees would not appear to block the sunlight.

Treanor objected. His trees were there first. He and his wife felt that they shouldn't have to go to the expense and visual assault of removing their beautiful, established redwoods simply because their neighbor decided to go solar.

But the courts were the eventual arbiter of this neighborhood grudge match. The Treanors were convicted of the crime of shady business. The court didn't side with Vargas altogether. Only one of the trees were found to be a repeat offender and the court did not levy the $1000/day fine on the Treanors.

Today, the executioner gave a small reprieve by just trimming the offending branches of the tree, resulting in a strange poodle cut. Vargas is not satieted in his sap-lust. He wants all the trees cut down, not trimmed. He vows to continue his court fight to get them all chopped down.

After seeing the video of his small, deeply shaded backyard, one cannot help but think that he might have been motivated to go solar more to gain sunshine in his backyard than to save energy.

But if the legislature makes a mistake, it is only too willing to make amends. One state legislator is proposing an amendment that fully grandfathers existing trees, including new growth, into the solar panel law.

But nothing saves Vargas from the Bad Neighbor of the Decade Award. Sadly, he'll have to live with himself knowing that he has singlehandedly and ironically added to the carbon footprint of his solar panels by reducing oxygen generated by the redwood.

The Treanors, who drive a sensible Toyota Prius, point out that the trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air, and provide wildlife habitat. They are quick to say that they support solar energy, but feel that it could be implemented in a more rational way.

Vargas, not to be outdone, recently bought an irrational fully electric plug-in car. He said that it would take 2-3 acres of trees to outweigh the carbon savings from his solar panels.

He did not mention how many trees it would take to offset his fully electric car's energy requirements from coal-fired electric generating plants. It is doubtful that his car is at home charging during the day when the solar panels are baking electricity. Nor did he say what are his plans for long-distance trips for which his electric car are ill-suited.

Aside from Vargas' solar motive, another question unanswered by the media is whether the Treanors could sue Vargas for damage to their home value after he forced them to ruin the appearance of the tree, especially since it was required by his apparent negligent placement of the solar panels. The litigation fun could go on for years.

Perhaps neither party can see the forest for the trees. Likewise, the media doesn't seem to care what those that are truly affected by the court order think about the matter.

The affected redwood could not be reached for comment as it recovers from its multiple amputations. But, other redwoods were waving their branches to have a word.

One of the amputee's neighboring trees said, "It's not our fault that we have a wide stance. [The amputee] didn't even realize that he was tapping the fence."

Another angry redwood barked, "You can't hug a solar panel!"

A tree in a nearby yard declined to be identified by species, but begrudgingly agreed to be interviewed in shaded profile. It asked, "Look, I'm going out on a limb here, but can't we all just get along?"

The solar panels smugly refused to comment on the case, but did say breezily that they were, "above it all."

A man who lives down the street from the feuding fence jockeys shook his head about the whole debarkle. He said, "I'm going to buy a frickin' Tesla roadster and show both of these yahoos who's the man."

In re Marriage Cases

This morning, I watched the televised coverage of the California Supreme Court's oral arguments on the same-sex marriage cases, In re Marriage Cases.

Being new to California, I'm not aware enough of the reputations of the justices. It was interesting to watch without knowing the personal histories and decisions by the justices.

Some gave away which side to which they leaned, while several asked pointed questions to both sides of the cases. Just as in the U.S. Supreme Court, even if you know the leanings of a justice, you still can't always predict the outcome.

I have no idea which way the court will decide.

They asked enough questions about leaving it to the legislature to handle, but also noted that the legislature has twice voted to extend marriage to gays and lesbians only to have it vetoed by the governor. It isn't so much a tyranny of the majority as the tyranny of one; the court is being asked to basically break a political stalemate.

The court did seem to struggle with taking a former holding regarding interracial marriages from 1948 and extend the rationale to this case. Likewise, there was some reluctance to grant protected class status to gays and lesbians.

Finally, several seemed to buy the State's position that the gender discrimination in the opposite-sex statute was in fact, gender neutral because both sexes have equal rights in regards to getting married, except to someone of the same gender.

It will be interesting to see the decision when it comes out. It isn't due for 90 days.

Glass Beach - Ft. Bragg, CA

File this under places that I'd like to visit. North of Pt. Arena, CA along the coast lies Ft. Bragg, CA. Years ago, the public dump was along this stretch of beach.

As the years went by, all the refuse was claimed by the ocean, including the broken glass. As winter storms roll through, it rolls more of the now polished glass back onto Glass Beach.

This small area of beach glows in the sun with glass pebbles. People come from all over to find treasures from what was once trash.

I worked once on a project in Pt. Arena, but I was only there briefly. I'd like to drive up the Pacific Coast Highway to Pt. Arena again and go further north to Glass Beach. Perhaps it will make a nice long weekend trip next September.