Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Dedications


You may notice that many books have a dedication in the opening, a page where the author dedicates the book to someone meaningful in their lives. It's often to a spouse or partner, the author's parents or children. When I published my first book in 2009, The Prohibition Hangover, I dedicated it to someone I've never met: U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. 

In mailing him a copy of the book, I sent Kennedy a letter explaining why I had given him the dedication. I wrote: 

"Besides the fact that we’re both from Sacramento, I wanted to explain the dedication. First off, you wrote the majority opinion in Granholm v. Heald in 2005, a case that required states to handle interstate wine shipments on an even-handed basis, rather than discriminating against out-of-state wine. Because of your opinion, the direct-to-consumer wine market has opened significantly. Consumers have many more choices now for wine, and we are one step closer to a 'virtual wine store.' Your decision was the right decision for consumers, and the wine industry owes you a debt of gratitude for your sound judgment.

"Equally important for me is that you have a lengthy history of deciding against discrimination. You wrote the majority opinions in both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, two cases with enormous significance for the gay community. As I’m a gay man, I am personally grateful for your being on the court and for being a decisive voice for fairness and equal treatment. Dedicating my book to you was the least I could do to express thanks from my community." 

Two months later, a FedEx envelop arrived. It was a thank-you card from Kennedy, which you'll see below. 



On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional in the case Windsor v. United States. Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. Likewise the court ruled that the supporters of California's Proposition 8 had no standing, making gay marriage legal in California. These decisions were narrow in scope, rather than sweeping judgments that demanded nationwide recognition of gay marriage. The court did not want to go beyond where American society is clearly headed. And yet these are major victories for the gay community, as the federal government now recognizes gay marriage de facto. 

A third of the country now lives in states where gay marriage is legal. That's huge. Most Americans are behind gay marriage. Those who aren't (such as Justice Antonin Scalia) are old and dying off. As the national consensus builds behind gay marriage, there's likely to be another Supreme Court decision in 5 or 10 years from now along the lines of Loving v. Virginia in 1967. That decision declared that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. 

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer penned a thoughtful op-ed in the Washington Post two days after the historic Windsor v. United States decision. He argued that nationwide gay marriage is now inevitable. "Washington must give the same federal benefits to gay couples as to straight couples because to do otherwise is to discriminate against the gay couples," he wrote. "After all, they are equally married in their states. For Washington to discriminate against them is to deny them equal protection of the laws. Such discrimination is nothing more than irrational animus - and therefore constitutionally inadmissible." 

While states will now debate legalizing gay marriage in the coming years, you can expect to see additional legal battles that ultimately will lead to a national Supreme Court decision. Just remember this: A marriage contract is a legally binding contract. If a straight couple can marry in one state and have their marriage license recognized in any other state, but a legally married gay couple is likewise denied recognition in a particular state (such as mine, Virginia) because it doesn't recognize such marriages, you now have a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause violation. The Supreme Court can then make a sweeping decision, a la Loving v. Virginia, that sweeps away state constitutional amendments and laws that ban gay marriage on grounds of discrimination. This will happen, and yes, we will live to see it. 

I extend my sincere thanks to Justice Anthony Kennedy for yet another vital decision based on equality and fairness, "in order to form a more perfect union." 

Garrett Peck

No comments:

Post a Comment