The whole marriage equality issue invites many compelling comparisons to de jure and de facto racial segregation. Not for nothing do so many point to Loving v. Virginia and the anti-miscegenation fight. As many know, the California State Supreme Court made an early ruling in that sphere, too, in 1948 in Perez v. Sharp. Perez has been cited by many in the press in coverage of the In re Marriages case just ruled on, perhaps since that ruling was a guidepost for the justices as they deliberated. In the Wikipedia article on anti-miscegenation laws, it leads off the section describing the last period of the anti-miscegenation repeals battles.

Two other aspects of that case are sobering. One, while many states repealed their anti-miscegenation rights after Perez, the South stood firm. The “states’ rights” fig leaf that both Obama and Clinton hide behind smacks of cowardice and equivocation on a matter that should be absolutely clear. The Wikipedia article notes Hanna Arendt’s then-controversial statements about anti-miscegenation laws:

The free choice of a spouse, she argued in Reflections on Little Rock, was “an elementary human right”: “Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.”

Why controversial? Because fellow liberals worried that such would, says the Wiki piece, “arouse the racist fears common among whites and thus hinder the struggle of African-Americans for Civil Rights and racial integration.” Sounds familiar. I consider it a major ethical shortcoming of both major Democratic candidates that neither has had the courage and vision to lead on this issue.

Sherry Wolf, in a piece in Socialist Worker, Guess who opposes gay marriage? says:

There’s something profoundly disturbing about Barack Obama, the son of a Black man and a white woman, calling for “states’ rights” when it comes to same-sex marriage, especially since the California court cited as precedent in this case the 60-year-old decision that opened the door for his own parents’ legal union.

Indeed.

The other sobering parallel with Perez, also noted when the CA Supreme Court decision was first announced: it took another twenty years for the federal Supreme Court to rule on the matter.

Chris Crain, of Citizen Crane, has a good, concise piece on why and how this initiative thing will be the battle royal. He quotes Matt Coles, of the ACLU’s LGBT Project. :

If we win the case and the initiative qualifies, we’ll be in the largest, most expensive, highest stakes political fight we’ve ever seen or are ever likely to see. Our opponents will understand that if they lose, and the voters in effect ratify the court’s decision, their fight against marriage in America will ultimately be unwinnable. They’ll put everything they have into the election.

Go over and read the rest, if ye be in any further need of inspiration to roll up your sleeves.

Most of y’all are upper-to-date on this than I am. But in the interests of helping any of us spread the news further and wider, I want to proliferate the links.

Along those lines: fallout already falling out, in the form of familiar violence: Pam at Pam’s House Blend draws our attention to a gay bashing in Sacramento, hours after the court’s verdict came down.

And if that sort of info helps motivate, I offer also this collection of conservative responses to the ruling: Heads exploding over CA marriage ruling. I ordinarily try to avert my gaze from the worst of that malarkey, and heartily appreciate my sistren and brethren who have the stomach to go mano á mano with the perpetrators thereof (and Pam sure is out there, bless her, with a iron stomach and a quick wit). Just pass this on to folks who don’t have a clear picture of the nature of the venom directed against us.

As preparation for what you’ll read there, I include for you this image, which accompanies the post and which (one has to imagine) came from the hate forum that’s quoted from in the piece:

But.

It helps that we have a single, fairly modest-sized room that is the kitchen-living room-dining room. So when we clean that one up, we’re more than half the way there in cleaning up the house.

Still, in the interests in full(er) disclosure:

:-)