Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 05/28/2008 9:58 am

Liz Smith: Gays Don't Have the Same Rights as People on Death Row

© Shutterstock


Editor’s Note: Featuring Kathleen Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a professor of communications and the former dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

LESLEY: This month, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban against homosexual marriage. They say things happen in California first and then spread across the country.

LIZ: But isn’t it likely, Lesley, that this California ruling does not mean very much? That it could be rescinded before we even get used to the idea?

LESLEY: Do you think that if they do put this to a vote that the public will overturn it? Go the other way? Ban homosexual marriages?

LIZ: I don’t know.

LESLEY: Candice, you …

CANDICE: Well, it happened already.

LESLEY: Yeah, that’s right. They voted against it. So we think this could easily be overturned?

LIZ: I think the marriage struggle for gays is going to be a long time coming. But eventually it’ll happen because just as with movements in women’s liberation, a lot of positive things have already taken place. Let’s consider this: A gay woman named Ellen DeGeneres has the most popular talk show in America. She even outstrips Oprah Winfrey. Doesn’t this say something? I think people are really kind of conflicted. Sometimes they’re sneaky and fuzzy when it comes to homosexuality. They go crazy over one demonstration of it, and then they’ll ignore another. And TV and entertainment – now you see they use gays as come-ons, lively examples, for emphasis. They use gay characters the way the movies sort of used the black comic Stepin Fetchit. The networks get a lot of bang for their gay buck.

LESLEY: This is definitely an issue that is generational. No question about it. People under a certain age are ho-hum on this issue. They don’t understand the controversy, and if they come out in large numbers to vote in California, I think that could have a huge effect on how it goes, if it’s put up to a vote this time.

CANDICE: If that’s true, it could also have a huge effect on McCain.

LESLEY: That’s right. What are you picking up on this, Kathleen? Anything?

KATHLEEN: It puts the position that candidates have taken on the Defense of Marriage Act into play in the presidential election. And I think that’s the way we’re going to see it play out. We’re going to see the discussion happen indirectly in relationship to that previous vote, or that previous position.

LESLEY: Are they different?

KATHLEEN: Yeah. The question is, do states have to recognize a marriage from another state or not? That’s one of the issues. And I do believe McCain and Obama are different.

LIZ: Do you remember that a lot of people felt that the Republicans brought up the gay marriage issue and that it helped defeat Al Gore, even though he won the popular vote? So I’m wondering if this was brought up this time to make it an issue again. Or did it just happen?

LESLEY: Well, the Supreme Court of California made the ruling, so it would be hard to see how it was done deliberately to affect the campaign.

LIZ: I had a gay kid say to me the other day, "Men and women on death row can marry people on the outside. They’re allowed to get married. And gays want the same rights as people on death row." I thought that was pretty good thinking.

LESLEY: I didn’t know that. Is that true?

LIZ: Well, women and men on death row are allowed to get married. Sure.

LESLEY: Oh, I see. They’re allowed to get married … not to each other.

226 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Liza D 08 .... beta
To Linda, Liza D - 5/28/2008 10:41 PM Hmmmmmm ?! I wonder? and I will take the bait … I will go to the link that you have provided. Ask anyone … I am sucker for a good link. BRB NEW POST FROM LIZA @ 10:56 CST OK, I am back ….. I went to the link provided by Linda. First of all the site was so purple that I wanted to be sick … certain colors make us feel certain things. Marketing 101. SO, aside from the purple haze I found the site to be filled with religious propaganda. I wish you joy and enlightenment and may love and tolerance be a friend to you for forever.
By Liza D 08 .... beta on 05/28/2008 10:58 pm
Estimada C
Well said, James. The Supreme Court appointments are the important issue here. I have a question for the California contributors regarding the gay marriage issue. The people voted to ban it - the court overturned it. Why didn’t the people’s voice count? Why have the vote at all?
By Estimada C on 05/28/2008 10:48 am
Lorraine Bates
Arlene, then why not let the South ceceed over slavery? Why let women vote? Why not let the Jim Crow laws stand? Why fight over Brown vs. Board of Education? Some things are just wrong, even if the majority of citizens approve of them.
By Lorraine Bates on 05/28/2008 12:03 pm
Frannie Em
Ladies of WOW Thank you for bringing up this issue. There was a majority of Californians that voted to ban gay marriage. It was not in reaction to a court case. I believe it was Pete Knight who authored the bill and got it on the ballot, and it was voted in. It did bring more Californians out to vote against other issues. It is my understanding that this case was brought before the California Supreme Court as a civil rights issue, and that is how it was argued. The deciding vote in favor was cast by a Republican judge who agreed it was a civil rights issue. It would seem to me that if the plaintiffs would have waited until after the November election it would have been better because there would be no conservative backlash. There would be no time for the conservatives to get an opposing initiative on the November ballot. So the idea that it was done by conservatives to affect the outcome in November, doesn’t hold water for me. LIZ - You are right “gays should be allowed to be as miserable as everybody else.” If marriage was so sacred, then why is there so much divorce? LESLEY, Everyday I hear how important this election is because of Supreme Court Nominations. It is not a mute issue. It is real and alive. People are more and more aware. ARLENE - We have been questioning the value of the vote regarding this. Why vote if the courts are going to overturn it? Good question. Are we really a democracy? Does the vote count? I think the judges looked at the law against gay marriage like the Jim Crow laws in the south. Was it constitutional? Did it violate someone’s civil rights? And that is how the conclusion was drawn. It wasn’t a unanimous vote either.
By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 12:37 pm
Frannie Em
Addendum This gives gays States Rights regarding marriage, but no Federal rights, meaning on tax deductions etc. I don’t know how the law works so I can’t add more there. Maybe someone else can.
By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 12:44 pm
Bonnie Oliver
Arlene C. The mayor of San Francisco last year decided to challenge the people’s voice and allowed the City Clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay persons who applied. The State Supreme Court issued a “stay” and the Mayor was effectively told to cease and desist. The Court has now ruled that the people’s voice/vote on an earlier Initiative was unconstitutional and that the “stay” against the City of San Francisco is effectively lifted. The new propostion to be placed before the voters of California in the Fall will effectively amend the State Constitution.
By Bonnie Oliver on 05/28/2008 8:21 pm
Frannie Em
Bonnie You have been so informative on this. I am not up on what the new initiative is all about. Well, it will play out the way it will play out. I think if that passes - it will end up in the Supreme Court. It will remain an issue for a long time.
By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 10:43 pm
Mugsy Peabody
Except, Bonnie, the new proposition “would,” not “will.” I do not believe the voters will amend the Constition of California to codify hate and bigotry.
By Mugsy Peabody on 06/01/2008 3:16 pm
Frannie Em
Mugsy, I agree about the constitution. But isn’t there a lot more work than just an initiative to amend the constitution? You might be more up on that, but I think the process involves much more.
By Frannie Em on 06/01/2008 6:54 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe
Lesley: Bill Moyers had Jeffrey Tobin on last week and Tobin made that point exactly –– how important this coming election will be in regards to the Supreme Court–––we need more coverage on this issue, absolutely. Gay marriage: We are going to look back at this in years to come and marvel at this nation’s inability to embrace humanity just as we do now when we see the old footage of blacks being fire-hosed, kicked to death and being refused an education. We seem to inch along at a snail’s pace while all the while people suffer needlessly.
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 05/28/2008 11:08 am
My Two Cents
Gays are a large segment of our society, regardless of how you feel about it. It makes sense to allow them legal rights granted to people that are married. The word marriage seems to be a problem for a lot of people. Is being gay a choice or genetics ? When the bible was written there was no knowledge of genetics. Lepers were shunned out of ignorance…
By My Two Cents on 05/28/2008 11:45 am
Chef Zee
I am a woman who has had and loved the same female partner for over thirty-three years. She, a successful attorney, has for professional and personal reasons kept our relationship closeted for all this time. Much of her fear is related to the post Stonewall years where we spent our young adulthood. Living gay in those days was much like being black before Rosa Parks. You were jeered, and taunted, and generally made to feel like a freak. My own mother said, when at sixteen I told her about my feelings, “I would rather see you married to a black man than this.” A commentary, I’m afraid, that reflected more than one narrow minded prejudice in the mid-sixties. It took years of therapy for me to convince myself that I am worthy and entitled to be judged by “the content of my character” and not by bible quoting Christians who would turn Jesus’ stomach if he witnessed the hate they spew in his name. And speaking of the bible, there are three mentions of homosexuality in this much referenced tome, and dozens on the sin of adultery, among others. Why then, are we the brunt of all this hate? Why are we being disenfranchised for whom we are able to love? Not maim, not molest, not abuse - but love. And I don’t believe for a moment the platitude “I hate the sin but not the sinner.” To me it sounds like, I hate the sin and want to fix or heal the sinner. Despite current opinion, homosexuality is not a choice. Experimenting with it might be, living it is not. I was six years old when I knew I felt something extraordinary about women. It wasn’t until I was twelve that I learned I should feel dirty, guilty and sick because of it. My partner and I, have lived productive, unselfish and caring lives. We have mentored and helped raise thirteen children. We are loved and honored by friends and the family members who do know about our relationship. We are successful professionals. Yet, we are not afforded the right to legitimize our love and commitment to each other. I don’t want the insipid civil union status. To me, it is a pat on the head, a lollypop offered to calm my tantrum. I want more; I need more; I deserve more.
By Chef Zee on 05/28/2008 11:53 am
Frannie Em
Chef Zee Thank you for your viewpoint. Most especially, thank you for helping children.
By Frannie Em on 05/28/2008 12:47 pm
Estimada C
Chef Zee, Thank you for your post. When I said “Hate the sin, but love the sinner” I was sincere in my statement. I worked for a high level executive at General Motors who was gay. He was every inch a gentleman and I respected him immensely and he respected me in return. My husband and I interacted with him on a social level. In another instance, I bowled on a team of five where I was the only “straight” woman. My teammates were great ladies - we had wonderful times together and I enjoyed their camaraderie. I was invited to their homes and graciously accepted. So please do not think I would hate anyone just because they were different from me. Just not so. I deplore and am outraged by any act of violence against any person. They have the right to choose their lifestyle.
By Estimada C on 05/28/2008 2:07 pm
Chef Zee
Thank you for the clarification, Arlene. It means a lot.
By Chef Zee on 05/28/2008 2:47 pm