More About: Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage | The Gay Rights Movement
Photo: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images.
|
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court
legalized same-sex marriage. In 30 days, the ruling will take effect. There is already a right-wing ballot initiative proposal underway to revise California's state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but there are three factors working against it:
- Proponents have not yet gathered the necessary signatures.
- Public opinion in California is strongly against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
- Even California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has stated that he supports the court's ruling and opposes the ballot initiative.
So while all Californians of good will need to organize against this ballot initiative if and when it moves forward, the most likely outcome is that same-sex marriage will remain legal in California. The only way the legislature can avoid recognizing same-sex marriage, under the terms of the court ruling, is if it abolishes state control over marriage altogether and reclassifies both heterosexual and same-sex marriage contracts as civil unions. This option, while both novel and sensible (see
"Should the Government Legislate Relationships?"), is even more controversial than same-sex marriage.
Simply put: California now recognizes same-sex marriage.
What does this mean for the country as a whole? Well, let's look at the numbers:
- An estimated 43 million Americans, or 14.3% of the U.S. population, now live in states that do not prohibit same-sex couples from getting married. (California, Massachusetts)
- An estimated 27.5 million Americans, or 9% of the U.S. population, now live in states or districts that formally recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions, but not same-sex marriage. (Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington)
- An estimated 234 million Americans, or 76.7% of the U.S. population, now live in states or territories that do not formally recognize same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships, or civil unions on a statewide or territory-wide level.
- The federal government does not award any marriage benefits to same-sex couples, except for certain pension benefits (see "New Pension Bill Provides Benefits for Same-Sex Couples").
To put it another way: About 1 in 4 Americans live in states whose governments do not openly treat same-sex couples with contempt, and same-sex marriage is now a more successful national movement than civil unions. And New York is very likely to join the same-sex marriage list soon, because same-sex marriage is supported by the governor, majorities in both chambers of the legislature, and 53% of the state population. When it does, two of the nation's three most populous states will practice marriage equality.
I'll have more to say about the reasoning behind the ruling itself over the weekend. For now, my thoughts are with the millions of lesbian and gay couples whose lives will be improved, directly or indirectly, by this ruling. Yesterday, California became a much more civilized state and the United States became a slightly more civilized nation. When America begins its Pride Month celebrations in two weeks, we'll all have a little more to be proud of.
See also:
More About: The History of Racial Profiling
Photo: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images.
|
Earlier this week, Human Rights Watch and the Sentencing Project both released reports strongly indicating that antidrug law enforcement targets African Americans to an astonishing degree.
The larger and more shocking of the two, Human Rights Watch's
Targeting Blacks: Drug Law Enforcement and Race in the United States, reports that (among other things):
- Despite decades of data indicating that between 65% and 70% of drug users are white, African Americans are 10.1 times as likely as whites to face prison time on drug-related charges.
- These prison disparities vary by state, with 10.1:1 representing a national average. In Wisconsin, African Americans are 42.4 times as likely as whites to go to prison on drug charges; in Mississippi, "only" 3 times as likely.
- Arrests of black suspects, even in cases of simple drug possession, also occur at a much higher rate. In Georgia, African Americans who make up 14 percent of drug users represent 58 percent of arrests. When the arrests are narrowed to cocaine possession, the difference is even more stark: African Americans in Georgia make up 22 percent of cocaine users, but 79 percent of arrests.
As the report points out, these disparities aren't necessarily due to police profiling--or at least not
exclusively due to police profiling. Geography and policy disparities also play a role:
Drug law enforcement ... has focused on low-income, predominantly minority neighborhoods. This is not a "race neutral" factor. Press attention and community concerns about crack cocaine and political imperatives to be "tough on crime" made those neighborhoods the principal "fronts" in the so-called war on drugs. Practical policing factors have played a role as well: drug transactions in poor minority neighborhoods are more likely to be in public spaces and between strangers, making it easier to undertake arrests, such as via "buy and bust" operations, than it is in the bars, clubs, and private homes where drug dealing by whites is more likely to occur.
Human Rights Watch offers a list of
eight suggestions to reduce racial disparities in enforcement. Among these is a greater emphasis on community courts and publicly-funded drug treatment programs, which have the effect of actually discouraging drug use, rather than emphasis on longer prison sentences, which have the effect of breaking community ties and discouraging future employment.
The other report, the Sentencing Project's
Disparity by Geography: The War on Drugs in America's Cities, documents an average 3.4:1 per capita ratio of black-white drug arrests in 43 major cities. The report also documents that between 1980 and 2003, the rate of drug arrests for African Americans increased by more than 500% in 11 major cities. The only city where white drug arrests also increased by more than 500% during the same period was Buffalo, New York.
But the most startling thing about this report from my vantage point is not the data on racial disparities itself, which reinforces the conclusions of
Targeting Blacks and similar reports, but rather the profoundly arbitrary character of drug law enforcement. Between 1980 and 2003, for example, Tucson experienced an 887% increase in drug arrests--compared to 52% in Phoenix and 13% in San Diego. There is no data suggesting that the drug problem in Tucson is appreciably worse than the drug problem in Phoenix or San Diego (nor is there any data suggesting that the 887% increase in rate of arrest has had a noticeably positive impact on drug use in Tucson), but the three municipalities have elected different local governments with different ideas of how to address the issue of drugs.
Both of these reports testify to the damage that the War on Drugs has done to black urban communities. Convicted felons are often barred from meaningful employment for life, even if the felony in question was drug possession. Prison sentences separate families and communities. Frequent arrests disrupt relationships between police and local communities, often leaving residents feeling more like victims of the criminal justice system than constituents. All of these factors encourage future drug use, which in turn encourages future arrests and future imprisonment.
There have been incremental reforms, both at national and local levels. In Mississippi, for example, the recently-signed SB 2136 eliminated mandatory sentences for some minor drug-related offenses. And the Second Chance Act of 2008 (see
"The Prisoner's Dilemma") has created new incentives to help felons transition back into the workforce, a key factor in preventing future recidivism.
But at the root of this problem is a military understanding of the drug problem--a poorly-planned and incompetently managed "War on Drugs" that comes with no definition of victory, no definition of defeat, and nothing else that could be realistically described as an exit strategy. Like the "War on Terror," it is defined as an eternal war against vaguely defined enemies--which means that there must always be, by definition, no end in sight. In order to succeed as political theater, the War on Drugs must continue to fail in practice.
See also:
