With the Calif. Supreme Court's Decision, Marriage Equality May Become a Reality
Back then it was race. Now it's sexual orientation. Supporters of same-sex marriage hope history will repeat itself 60 years after the court ruled against anti-miscegenation laws.
Domestic partnership is becoming more complex for Jill and Pauline Guillermo-Togawa. Aside from the daily struggle to balance responsibilities as working spouses and parents, they have to deal with a fickle government and changing laws.
"It's funny you call it a struggle," said Pauline. "It really is a struggle."
They met almost a decade ago as friends, but then romance lead to marriage and kids. Jill and Pauline are registered as domestic partners under California family code section 297, which give them almost all of the rights of other married couples. Almost.
This year, the Bay Area couple received a letter from the state telling them to file their taxes jointly. That's great, but the Internal Revenue Service still does not recognize same-sex couples.
They're used to the red tape.
But in February 2004, Jill and Pauline got a glimpse of the good life. They along with thousands of other same-sex couples lined up in front of San Francisco City Hall in the rain to legally marry. For the first time in their life together, Jill and Pauline were able to breeze past bureaucracy with their marriage certificate.
It was magical - like they just waved their certificate to hyphenate their last names. They did the same to apply for new social security cards with no problem. But when they tried to get new driver's licenses, the San Francisco Department of Motor Vehicles denied the legality of their marriage.
"It surprised me how much I cared," said Jill, a Yonsei. "The act of being recognized was much more meaningful than I thought it was going to be."
Six months after Jill and Pauline exchanged vows, the California Supreme Court nullified approximately 4,000 same-sex marriages because they were performed in defiance of state law. Since then, cases challenging the constitutionality of the state's marriage statutes have made its way though the courts stopping again at the supreme court on March 4-6 for oral arguments.
The court's ruling on marriage equality, which is expected in May, is being called one of its most important decisions this year. The ruling could make California only the second state to offer same-sex couples like Jill and Pauline equal standing with heterosexual couples under the law.
Waiting to Hear their Fate
California is a fitting backdrop for the historic case known as In re Marriage Cases, S147999.
The legal history of marriage rights has changed in the Golden State before. In 1948 the California Supreme Court ruled in Perez v. Sharp that the state's anti-miscegenation law was unconstitutional. That decision set the stage for Loving v. Virginia in 1967 when the nation's highest court struck down similar anti-miscegenation laws in more than a dozen states.
Back then, marriage rights were denied based on race. Today, it's sexual orientation. Proponents of same-sex marriages hope that, 60 years later, the current California Supreme Court justices will see parallels between the cases.
Marriage equality is especially significant for Asian Pacific Americans because of the community's painful experiences with anti-miscegenation laws, said Karin Wang, vice president of programs at Los Angeles' Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC).
In the 2000 Census, over 38,000 APAs identified themselves as living with a same-sex partner, according to a 2006 study by the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. California is also home to the largest number of same-sex APA partners.
But these numbers are likely lower than in real life because of the Census Bureau's record of undercounting APAs, said Wang.
Being gay and APA is like being a minority within a minority.
In California, the marriage equality struggle is often brushed aside because of the state's domestic partnership statute, which can provide same-sex couples with almost all of the rights of married couples, but does not provide any federal rights or benefits.
"If the court follows the law and reads the constitution, you cannot pretend that domestic partner is the same as marriage. It is not equal," said J Craig Fong, a Los Angeles attorney and gay rights advocate.
For couples like Jill and Pauline it's been an emotional roller coaster. They try not to obsess over the news because they've gotten their hopes up before. The California legislature passed bills to allow same-sex marriage in 2005 and 2007. Both times, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the legislations. But the arrival of their daughter, Carmel, has made it more important to be recognized as a married couple.
"It's for her happiness and her well-being," said Jill, about their two-year-old daughter.
"Officially, we're waiting for the other shoe to drop," said Pauline, who is Filipino American. "I view it as a matter of civil rights. My civil rights are being threatened."
JACL Stuck Its Neck Out
Today many APAs who identify as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) can turn to countless support organizations like API Equality. But there was a time when APA groups did not consider same-sex marriage rights a priority, said Fong.
When others didn't want to talk about it, JACL made history. At the 1994 Salt Lake City convention, JACL became the first non-gay organization - after the American Civil Liberties Union - to support same-sex marriage. The board decision prompted the resignation of then JACL legal counsel Allen Kato and stirred heated debate within the membership.
Many JACLers didn't see the relationship between gay rights and civil rights, said Fong, who was with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund at the time. He was invited to speak at the JACL convention on the controversial issue.
"Rarely have I received a chillier response," said Fong. Some JACLers booed him.
But when Norman Mineta appealed to the national council on the importance of supporting equal marriage rights, minds began to change. And when the resolution passed, tears of joy flowed.
"That was huge," said Fong. "To have this organization say, 'okay, we're with you' was a huge moment."
Since that historic decision, many other APA organizations have come out in support of same-sex marriages, but how far has the movement come since the 1990s?
In November 1994 API Lambda, JACL's LGBT chapter, was created for JA LGBTs who wanted to be a part of the organization like their parents and grandparents. At its peak, the chapter had over 20 members, but it's now a shadow of its former self. Today there are less than a handful of members left on the chapter roster.
"I wish API Lambda were more active," said Norris Nagao, a professor at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, Calif. He joined the chapter years ago, but has never received a call, letter or e-mail about chapter activities. He's never met any other chapter members.
It may seem odd to others why he continues to be a part of an inactive chapter, said Nagao, but the main reason why he joined was because of the JACL's position on same-sex marriage. His family has no ties to JACL. In fact, when he mentioned that he joined, they asked, why?
"I felt like the JACL stuck out its neck when it didn't have to," and he was proud of that.
API Lambda was only active for about a year mostly because the members realized it was no big deal to be a part of another chapter, said Fong, one of the its founding members. The chapter is no longer needed but important to have, he added.
But Nagao disagrees.
A few years ago, he received terrible news: API Lambda was going to be eliminated. He was asked to join another chapter - perhaps the more active San Diego chapter?
No way, said the Sansei. Up until his 30s, he lived a double life by pretending to be "normal." Once he identified as gay, he felt like the local APA community stopped seeing him as Asian.
"It's all a part of identity politics," said Nagao. JACL and API Lambda are some of the places where facets of his identity intersect.
After all the interest and goodwill in the 1990s, the mainstream LGBT community has been deficit in outreaching to communities of color, said Fong.
The Tenuous Future
Many same-sex marriage proponents say now is the time to come together again.
"JACL members have in the past been the victims of marriage discrimination. Fairness and equality under the law will always be an objective of JACL advocacy efforts even in times of great controversy," said Floyd Mori, JACL national director.
In May, the California Supreme Court could rule that the current law, which states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional and declare that same-sex couples could marry. Or the court could rule that the law is constitutional and that California will only allow heterosexual marriages.
As Californians await the ruling, some anti-gay marriage groups have already launched a counter attack. Protect Marriage says it has collected 881,000 of the 1.1 million signatures needed to put an anti-same-sex initiative on the November ballot. The deadline for turning in the petitions to county registrars is April 21.
If voters approve the amendment, it would nullify a pro-gay marriage ruling from the California Supreme Court.
"It's a historical time for us. Many of us in the community, both the APA and LGBT are holding our breath at this moment," said Pauline.
The Pacific Citizen Web site gives you a sampling of the stories currently in the print edition of the P.C. Click here to subscribe and get two months free!
Print This Article-
Email This Article